Skip to main content

Full text of "Dictionary Of Deities And Demons In The Bible"

See other formats


ICTIONARY OF 
EITIES AND 
EMONS IN 
THE BIBLE 





EDITED BY 


KAREL VAN DER TOORN, BOB BECKING, 
AND PIETER W. VAN DER HORST 


DICTIONARY OF 
DEITIES AND DEMONS 
IN THE BIBLE 


DICTIONARY OF 
DEITIES AND DEMONS 
IN THE BIBLE 


DDD 


Edited by 
Karel van der Toorn 
Bob Becking 
Pieter W. van der Horst 


SECOND 
EXTENSIVELY REVISED 
EDITION 


KEG, 


VTA $ 
« 6, 
ETE * 


"6837 
BRILL 
LEIDEN * BOSTON * KOLN 


WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY 
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K. 


1999 


© 1999 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 


All rights reserved. 
No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, 
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying. 
recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. 


First edition 1995 
Second extensively revised edition 1999 


Published jointly 1999 by Brill Academic Publishers 
P.O. Box 9000, 2300 PA Leiden, The Netherlands, and by 
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 
255 Jefferson Ave., S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 / 
P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K. 


Published under the auspices 
of the Faculty of Theology 
of Utrecht University 





This book is printed on acid-free paper 
Printed in the United States of America 


05 04 03 02 01 00 99 54321 


Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data 


Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (DDD) / Karel van der Toom, 
Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst, editors. — 2nd extensively rev. ed. 
| cm. 

Includes bibliographical references and index. 

Brill ISBN 90-01-11119-0 (cloth: alk. paper). 

Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491-9 (cloth: alk. paper). 

1. Gods in the Bible — Dictionaries. 2. Demonology in the Bible — Dictionaries. 
I. Toorn, K. van der. II. Becking, Bob. 11]. Horst, Pieter Willem van der. 
BS680.G57D53 1999 
220.3 — dc?l 98-42505 

CIP 


Die Deutsche Bibliothek — CIP-Einheitsaufnahme 


Dictionary of deities and demons In the Blble : (DDD) / Karel van der Toorn .. . cd. — 
2nd extensively rev. ed. — Leiden; Boston; Kóln : Brill, 1998 
Brill ISBN 90-04-11119-0 
Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491-9 


Brill ISBN 90 04 11119 0 
Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-2491-9 


Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate 
fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923 
USA. Fees are subject to change. 


CONTENTS 


COnsSultants ..........cccccceeseeccecsesesseeceeeeeeneneeasessssaueesessessecsseess VI 
List of Contributors ........ aeeeceensavsaneeanevssuscacessscseesansensaessee® VII 
Introduction ..................eeeeseeeeeeeeeeenne nennt nennen tentent rota XV 
Preface to the Revised Edition .............................eeessss XIX 
Abbreviations ........... eeeseeeeeeeeei nennen nenne aate esee eterne XXI 
General .....ccccccccccccsccccccsssscesseccessccscevsesencesesssaseeuseeeaneauen XXI 
Biblical Books (including the Apocrypha) ................. XXI 
Pseudepigraphical and Early Patristic Works ............. XXII 
Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts ............ SR XXIII 
Targumic Material .................... eese XXII 
Periodicals, Reference Works, and Series .................. XXIV 
List Of ENtrieS ......0...ccccccccccssseseeccceseseessecaaeseceeasaeceseeeeeseees XXXIII 
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible ............... 1 


CONSULTANTS 


HANS DIETER BETZ 
Chicago 


ANDRE CAQUOT 
Paris 


JONAS C. GREENFIELD 
Jerusalem 


ERIK HORNUNG 
Basel 


MICHAEL STONE 
Jerusalem 


MANFRED WEIPPERT 
Heidelberg 


LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 


Tzvi ABUSCH, Waltham 
(Etemmu, Ishtar, Marduk) 


Larry J. ALDERINK, Moorhead 
(Demeter, Nike, Stoicheia) 


Bendt ALSTER, Copenhagen 
(Tammuz, Tiamat, Tigris) 


Jan ASSMANN, Heidelberg 
(Amun, Isis, Neith, Re) 


David E. AUNE, Chicago 
(Archai, Archon, Hera, Heracles) 


Tjitze BAARDA, Amsterdam 
(Sabbath) 


Michael L. BarrE, Baltimore 
(Lightning, Night, Rabisu) 


Hans M. BARSTAD, Oslo 
(Dod, Sheol, Way) 


Bernard F. Barro, Greencastle 
(Behemoth, Curse, Zedeq) 


Bob BECKING, Utrecht 
(Abel, Amalek, Ancient of Days, Arm, Blood, Breasts-and-womb, Cain, Day, Eagle, 
El-rophe, Ends of the earth, Exalted ones, Girl, Hubal, Ishhara, Jaghut, Jalam, 
Japheth, Jordan, Kenan, Lagamar, Protectors, Qatar, Rapha, Raven, Sarah, Sasam, 
Sha, Shalman, Shelah, Shem, Shining One(s), Shunama, Sisera, Thillakhuha, Thuka- 
muna, Vanities, Varuna, Virgin, Ya‘dq, Yehud, Zamzummim) 


Hans Dieter BETZ, Chicago 
(Authorities, Dynamis, Legion) 


VIII LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 


Jan DEN BoeEFr, Utrecht 
(Saviour) 


Jan N. BREMMER, Groningen 
(Ares, Hades, Hymenaios, Linos, Narcissus, Nereus, Nymph) 


Cilliers BREYTENBACH, Berlin 
(Hypsistos, Nomos, Satan) 


Roelof VAN DEN BROEK, Utrecht 
(Apollo, Phoenix) 


Mordechai CoGan, Jerusalem 
(Ashima, Shulman, Shulmanitu, Sukkoth-benoth, Tartak) 


John J. CoLLINs, Chicago 
(Daniel, Gabriel, Liers-in-wait, Prince, Saints of the Most High, Watcher) 


Peter W. Coxon, St. Andrews 
(Gibborim, Nephilim, Noah) 


Peggy L. Day, Winnipeg 
(Anat, Jephtah’s daughter, Satan) 


Meindert DIJKSTRA, Utrecht 
(Abraham, Adat, Aliyan, Clay, Esau, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Leah, Mother, Rachel) 


Ken DowDen, Birmingham 
(Aeneas, Daphne, Dioskouroi, Jason, Makedon, Menelaos, Patroklos, Perseus,Quiri- 
nus, Silvanus, Skythes, Thessalos) 


Han J. W. DRUVERS, Groningen 
(Aion, Atargatis, Mithras) 


Eric E. ELNES, Princeton 
(Elyon, Olden Gods) 


Reinhard FELDMEIER, Bayreuth 
(Almighty, Mediator II, World rulers) 


Jarl E. Fossum, Ann Arbor 
(Dove, Glory, Simon Magus, Son of God) 


Hannes D. GarrEn, Graz 
(Aya, Bashtu, Hubur) 


LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS IX 


Richard L. GORDON, IImmünster 
(Anthropos, Helios, Poseidon, Pronoia) 


Fritz Graf, Basel 
(Aphrodite, Athena, Bacchus, Dionysus, Heros, Zeus) 


Jonas C. GREENFIELD, Jerusalem 
(Apkallu, Hadad) 


Mayer I. GRUBER, Beer-Sheva 
(Abomination, Azabbim, Gillulim, Lies, One) 


John F. HEALEY, Manchester 
(Dagon, Dew, Ilib, Mot, Tirash) 


Matthieu S. H. G. HEERMA VAN Voss, Amsterdam 
(Hathor, Horus, Osiris, Ptah) 


George C. HEIDER, River Forest 
(Lahmu, Molech, Tannin) 


Ronald S. HENDEL, Dallas 
(Nehushtan, Serpent, Vampire) 


Jan Willem vAN HENTEN, Amsterdam 
(Angel II, Archangel, Dragon, Mastemah, Python, Roma, Ruler cult, Typhon) 


Wolfgang HERRMANN, Stuttgart 
(Baal, Baal-zebub, El, Rider-upon-the-clouds) 


Pieter W. VAN DER Horst, Utrecht 
(Adam, Amazons, Ananke, Chaos, Dike, Dominion, Eros, Evil Inclination, Father of 
the lights, God II, Hosios kai dikaios, Hyle, Hypnos, Lamb, Mammon, Thanatos, 
Themis, Unknown God) 


Cornelis HOUTMAN, Kampen 
(Elijah, Moses, Queen of Heaven) 


Herbert B. HUFFMON, Madison 
(Brother, Father, Name, Shalem) 


Manfred HUTTER, Graz 
(Abaddon, Asmodeus, Earth, Heaven, Heaven-and-earth, Lilith, Shaushka) 


X LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 
Bernd JaANowski, Tübingen 
(Azazel, Jackals, Satyrs, Wild Beasts) 


Albert DE JoNc, Leiden 
(Khvarenah, Mithras, Vohu Manah, Wrath) 


Marinus DE JONGE, Leiden 
(Christ, Emmanuel, Heaven, Sin, Thrones) 


Jean KELLENS, Liège 
(Arta, Baga, Haoma) 


Emst Axel KNAuF, Bern 
(Edom, Qés, Shadday) 


Matthias KÓCKERT, Berlin 
(Fear of Isaac, Mighty One of Jacob, Shield of Abraham) 


Frans VAN KOoPPEN, Leiden 
(Agreement, Altar, Holy One, Humban, KiririSa, Sanctuary, Soil, Vashti) 


Marjo C. A. KoRPEL, Utrecht 
(Creator of All, Rock, Stone, Thornbush) 


Bernhard LANG, Paderborn 
(Wisdom) 


Fabrizio LELLI, Florence 
(Stars) 


Theodore J. Lewis, Athens (USA) 
(Dead, First-born of death, Teraphim) 


Bert Jan LIETAERT PEERBOLTE, Leiden 
(Antichrist) 


Edouard LiPIŃsKI, Louvain 
(Lamp, Light, Shemesh) 


Alasdair LIVINGSTONE, Birmingham 
(Assur, Image, Nergal) 


Johan Lust, Louvain 
(Gog, Magog) 


LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS XI 


Michael Macu, Tel Aviv 
(Jeremiel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel) 


P. Kyle McCarter, Baltimore 
(Evil spirit of God, Id, Zion) 


Meir MALUL, Haifa 
(Strong Drink, Taboo, Terror of the Night) 


Luther H. Martin, Burlington 
(Fortuna, Hermes, Tyche) 


Samuel A. MEIER, Columbus 
(Angel I, Angel of Yahweh, Destroyer, Mediator I) 


Tryggve N. D. METTINGER, Lund 
(Cherubim, Seraphim, Yahweh zebaoth) 


A. R. MILLARD, Liverpool 
(Adrammelech, Anammelech, Nabü, Nibhaz) 


Patrick D. MILLER, Princeton 
(Elyon, Olden Gods) 


Hans-Peter MULLER, Miinster 
(Chemosh, Falsehood, Malik) 


S. MONGER, Fribourg 
(Ariel) 


Martin J. MULDER, Leiden 
(Baal-berith, Carmel, God of fortresses) 


E. Theodore MULLEN, Indianapolis 
(Baalat, Go’el, Witness) 


Gerard Mussies, Utrecht 
(Amaltheia, Artemis, Giants, Hyacinthus, Jezebel, Olympus, Tabor, Titans, Wind- 
Gods) 


Nadav Na’aMAN, Tel Aviv 
(Baal toponyms, Baal-gad, Baal-hamon, Baal-hazor, Baal-hermon, Baal-judah, Baal- 
meon, Baal-perazim, Baal-shalisha, Baal-tamar) 


XII LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 


George W. E. NICKELSBURG, Iowa City 
(Son of Man) 


Herbert NiEHR, Tübingen 
(Baal-zaphon, God of heaven, He-of-the-Sinai, Host of heaven, Zaphon) 


Kirsten NIELSEN, Århus 
(Oak, Sycomore, Terebinth) 


Gregorio DEL OLMO LETE, Barcelona 
(Bashan, Deber, Og) 


Dennis PARDEE, Chicago 
(Asham, Eloah, Gepen, Gether, Koshar, Kosharoth) 


Simon B. PARKER, Boston 
(Council, Saints, Shahar, Sons of (the) God(s)) 


Martin F. G. PARMENTIER, Utrecht 
(Mary) 


Emile PUECH, Jerusalem 
(Lel, Lioness, Milcom) 


Albert DE Pury, Geneva 
(El-olam, El-roi, Lahai-roi) 


Jannes REILING, Utrecht 
(Elders, Holy Spirit, Melchizedek, Paraclete, Unclean Spirits) 


Sergio RIBICHINI, Rome 
(Adonis, Baetyl, Eshmun, Gad, Melqart) 


Greg J. RILEy, Fairfax 
(Demon, Devil, Midday demon) 


Wolfgang RöLLIG, Tübingen 
(Baal-shamem, Bethel, El-creator-of-the-earth, Hermon, Lebanon, 
Sirion) 


Hedwige ROUILLARD-BONRAISIN, Paris 
(Rephaim) 


LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 


Christopher ROWLAND, Oxford 
(Enoch) 


David T. Runia, Leiden 
(Logos) 


Udo RUTERSWORDEN, Kiel 
(Horeph, Horon, King of terrors) 


Brian SCHMIDT, Ann Arbor 
(Al, Moon) 


Choon-Leong SEOw, Princeton 
(Am, Face, Lim, Torah) 


Klaas A. D. SMELIK, Brussels 
(Ma‘at) 


S. David SPERLING, New York 
(Belial, Meni, Sheben) 


Klaas SPRONK, Amsterdam 


(Baal of Peor, Dedan, Lord, Noble ones, Rahab, Travellers) 


Marten STOL, Amsterdam 
(Kaiwan, Mulissu, Nanea, Sakkuth, Sîn) 


Fritz SroLz, Zürich 
(River, Sea, Source) 


Marvin A. SWEENEY, 
(Ten Sephirot) 


Karel VAN DER TOORN, Amsterdam 


XII 


(Agreement, Altar, Amurru, Arvad, Avenger, Beltu, Boaz, Cybele, Eternity, Euphra- 
tes, Gabnunnim, God I, Gush, Ham, Haran, Hayin, Hebat, Holy One, Humbaba, 
Humban, Jael, Kelti, Kese?, KiririSa, Laban, Meriri, Min, Mouth, Nahor, Qatar, 
Rakib-El, Ram, Sanctuary, Serug, Seth, Shahan, Sheger, Shepherd, Shimige, Sidon, 


Soil, Terah, Vashti, Viper, Vohu Manah, Yahweh) 


Joseph TRoPPER, Berlin 
(Spirit of the dead, Wizard) 


XIV LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 
Christoph UEHLINGER, Fribourg 
(Leviathan, Nimrod, Nisroch, Riding Horseman) 


Herman TE VELDE, Groningen 
(Bastet, Bes, Khonsu, Nile) 


Richard L. Vos, Capelle aan de IJssel 
(Apis, Atum, Ibis, Thoth) 


Jan A. WAGENAAR, Utrecht 
(King) 


Wilfred G. E. Watson, Newcastle upon Tyne 
(Fire, Flame, Helel, Lah, Misharu) 


Nicholas Wyatt, Edinburgh 
(Asherah, Astarte, Calf, Eve, Kinnaru, Oil, Qeteb) 


Paolo XELLA, Rome 
(Barad, Haby, Mountains-and-valleys, Resheph) 


Larry ZALCMAN, Tel Aviv 
(Orion, Pleiades) 


Ida ZATELLI, Florence 
(Aldebaran, Constellations, Libra) 


Dieter ZELLER, Mainz 
(Jesus, Kyrios) 


INTRODUCTION 


The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (henceforth DDD) is in some ways 
unlike any other dictionary in the field of biblical studies. This is the first catalogue of 
its kind, one which discusses all the gods and demons whose names are found in the 
Bible. Complementing the usual surveys and histories of Mesopotamian, Egyptian, 
Ugaritic, Syro-Palestinian, Persian, Greek, and Roman religion, DDD assesses the 
impact of contemporary religions on Israel and the Early Church by focusing on those 
gods that actually left traces in the Bible. 

The deities and demons dealt with in this dictionary are not all of one kind. Even 
though the distinction between major and minor gods is a delicate one, some of the 
gods here discussed are more representative of their culture than others; Marduk’s 
place in Babylonian religion is more central than that of the god Euphrates. If both 
have nevertheless found their way into DDD, it is because the two of them are men- 
tioned in the Bible. Other gods, however, despite their importance, have no separate 
entry in DDD because there is not a single mention of them in the biblical books: Enlil 
is an example of this. The imbalance produced by a selection based on the occurrence 
of a god’s name in the Bible is redressed, to some degree, by a system of cross-refer- 
ences throughout DDD and an index at the end. Thus Anu, the Mesopotamian god of 
heaven, does not have a separate entry, but is discussed under ‘Heaven’, and in various 
other articles indicated in the index. The inevitable disproportion caused by the cri- 
terion on which DDD has been conceived is often more optical than real. 

The criterion by which DDD has selected its gods has just been summarized as men- 
tion of the god’s name in the Bible. Yet things are not as straightforward as this rule of 
thumb measurement might suggest. The boundaries of the Bible, to begin with, change 
from the one religious community to the other. In order to make the selection of deities 
as representative as possible, the editors have chosen to base it on the most com- 
prehensive canon currently used, viz. that of the Orthodox Churches, which consists of 
the complete canon of the Septuagint version (including 3 and 4 Maccabees) plus the 
Greek New Testament. The term Bible as used in the title of DDD covers in fact the 
Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; the complete Septuagint (including the so-called 
Apocrypha); and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Though many articles 
pay attention to the subsequent development of notions and concepts in the Pseud- 
epigrapha, the latter have not been used as an independent quarry of theonyms. 

Many gods discussed in DDD are mentioned by name in the Bible. They constitute 
what one might call the first group. Obvious examples are Asherah, Baal, El, Hermes, 
Zeus and others. These gods were still recognized or recognizable as such by the author 
of the relevant passage and by the audience. In some instances the names are found 
only in the Septuagint and not in the corresponding section of the Masoretic text. An 
interesting example is Apis: at Jer 46:15 the Greek Old Testament has Eovuyev ó “Amg, 


XVI INTRODUCTION 


“(Why) has Apis fled?", where the Masoretic text reads *)703, "(Why) was it swept 
away?” Should the Greek be a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text (which is not cer- 
tain), it is valuable as a reflection of the religious milieu surrounding the—Jewish— 
community in which the translator was at home. 

A second group of deities listed in DDD are mentioned in the Bible, not indepen- 
dently, but as an element in personal names or place names. Such theophoric anthropo- 
nyms and toponyms are a rich source of information on the religious milieu of the 
Israelites and the Early Christians. It need hardly be said that the occurrence of a deity 
in a place name, such as Anat in Anathoth, or Shemesh in Beth-shemesh, does not 
automatically imply that the deity in question was in fact worshipped by the people 
who lived there; nor need someone called Artemas or Tychicus (Tit 3:12) have been a 
devotee of Artemis or Tyche. Yet such names reflect a certain familiarity with the dei- 
ties in question, if not of the inhabitants of the town or the bearer of the name, then at 
least of their ancestors or their surroundings. The deities in question may therefore be 
said to have been part of the religious milieu of the Bible. 

A third group of deities consists of gods mentioned in the Bible, but not in their 
capacity as gods. They are the so-called demythologized deities. Examples abound. 
One of the Hebrew words for moon used in the Bible is yarealt; this is the etymological 
equivalent of Yarikh, the moon-god known from the Ugaritic texts. Although the moon 
may have retained faint traces of divinity in the Bible, it has basically been divested of 
its divine status. The same holds true of the sun (3emes): the Hebrew word corresponds 
with the god Shamash in Akkadian, and the goddess Shapshu in Ugaritic. There are 
many other, more trivial instances, such as ríró3, the Hebrew word for new wine, ety- 
mologically the equivalent of the Mesopotamian deity Sirish and the Canaanite god 
Tirash. Although the Hebrew words (and there are also Greek examples) no longer 
stand for deities, the very fact that the corresponding terms in other Semitic languages 
do, is revealing. We have included many examples of such dethroned deities, not only 
to draw attention to the mythological overtones still occasionally perceptible, but also 
to demonstrate how Israelites, Jews, and Early Christians were part of a religious cul- 
ture from which they are to be distinguished at the same time. 

The fourth group of deities discussed in DDD consists of gods whose presence 
and/or divinity is often questionable. In the course of biblical scholarship, a wealth of 
alleged deities has been discovered whose very presence in the texts it not immediately 
evident. A famous example is that of Belti and Osiris. By slightly revocalizing Isa 
10:4, and altering the division of the words, Paul de Lagarde obtained a reference to 
Belti and Osiris where generations of scholars before him had read a negation (bilri) 
and the collective designation of prisoners (’assir). Such emendations sometimes con- 
jure up gods hitherto unknown; in many cases they are phantom deities, in the sense 
that they are unattested elsewhere in the Bible or in ancient Near Eastern texts, or that 
the textual proposal is simply unwarranted. In the category of speculated deities fall 
also the suggestions conceming the appellative use of certain epithets, such as Shep- 
herd or Stone. The reinterpretation of good Hebrew words (such as ra‘, ‘evil’) as theo- 
nyms (such as Re, the Egyptian sun-god) is another case in point. In a limited number 
of cases, the supposed deity is established as the hidden reality behind a human figure; 


INTRODUCTION XVII 


thus Jephthah's daughter has allegedly been modelled after a goddess. The inclusion of 
such deities often is more a tribute to the scholarly ingenuity of colleagues, present and 
past, than an accurate picture of the religious situation in biblical times. Also, it has 
proved impossible to be exhaustive in this domain. Some suggestions have no doubt 
escaped our notice, or simply been judged too far-fetched to qualify for inclusion in 
DDD. 

The fifth and final category of gods is constituted by human figures who rose to 
attain divine or semi-divine status in a later tradition. Jesus and Mary belong to this 
group, but also Enoch, Moses and Elijah. At times the process of glorification, or more 
precisely divinization, started during the biblical period; before the closing of the first 
century CE divinity was ascribed to Jesus. In most cases, however, the development 
leading to divine status has been postbiblical. It tells more about the Wirkungsgeschich- 
te than about the perception of such exceptional humans by their contemporaries. Yet 
the borderlines between human and divine are not always crystal clear; neither is the 
precise point at which the divinization began. What is found in its full-blown form in 
postbiblical writings is often contained in nuce in the Bible. 

The aims of DDD, in short, cannot be reduced to a single object. It is meant primari- 
ly as an up-to-date source-book on the deities and demons found in the Bible. Its 
various attendant aims are hardly less important, though. It is meant as a scholarly 
introduction to the religious universe which the Israelites and the Early Christians were 
part of; it is meant as a tool to enable readers to assess the distinctiveness of Israclite, 
Jewish and Early Christian religions; it is meant as a survey of biblical scholarship with 
respect to the mythological background of various biblical notions and concepts; and it 
is meant, finally, as a means to discover that the Bible has not only dethroned many 
deities, but has also produced new ones. 


Most articles of DDD consist of four sections, each marked by a Roman numeral. Sec- 
tion l discusses the name of the god, including its etymology, as well as its occurrence 
in the various ancient civilisations surrounding Israel and Judah. The biblical evidence 
is briefly surveyed, and a gencral indication as to the capacity in which the name 
occurs is given. Section II deals with the identity, character and role of the deity or 
demon in the culture of origin. When an originally non-Israelite deity is discussed, 
such as Amun, Marduk or Zeus, the section focuses on the cult of the god outside the 
Bible. If the god is primarily attested in the Bible, section II is devoted to a discussion 
of the extra-biblical references and parallels. Section III deals with the role and nature 
of the deity in the books of the Bible. Section IV consists of the relevant bibliography. 
An asterisk prefixed to the name of the *author marks a publication as particularly 
important for the subject. Studies containing further bibliographical information are 
followed by the observation ‘& lit’ between brackets after the title. A supplementary 
section is sometimes added to discuss the post-Biblical attestations and developments. 


Many people have collaborated over the past four years to carry DDD to completion. It 
is a pleasure to mention some of those who have been involved with the project. The 
initial impetus came from Michael Stone (Jerusalem). His idea of creating a dictionary 


XVIII INTRODUCTION 


of ancient Near Eastern religions found favour with Brill; one of its publishers, 
Elisabeth Erdman, began to look for an editor. The three editors she eventually found 
decided to curtail Stone’s ambitious project to far more modest dimensions; and even 
as modest a project as DDD has proved more time-consuming than any of us expected. 

During the first year a list of entries was prepared, sample articles were written, and 
over a hundred authors were solicited. Several of the latter suggested entries previously 
overlooked by the editors. The major part of the job began at the end of the second year 
when articles started coming in. Though the scholarly work on the manuscripts (or 
rather hard copy) was done by the editorial team, if need be after consulting with the 
advisors, thc bulk of the articles were processed and made ready for publication by 
various assistants. Mrs Gerda Bergsma, Ms Kim de Berg, Mr Joost van Meggelen, Mr 
Hans Baart, and Mr Theo Bakker have assisted us with the preparation of the manu- 
script, for different amounts of time. We owe a special debt of gratitude to Ms 
Meta Baauw who saw most of the articles through the final stage of preparation. Mr 
Hans van de Berg (Utrecht University) was invaluable for his assistance with all mat- 
ters pertaining to computers and software. Dr Peter Staples (Utrecht University) and 
Mrs Helen Richardson have polished the language of the articles, often written by 
scholars for whom English is not their primary—nor, for many, their secondary— 
tongue. Dr Gerard Mussies (Utrecht University) joined us in reading the proofs. The 
collaboration with all of them, and—though less immediately—with the international 
group of respected colleagues who have written the various contributions, has been one 
of the rewards of editing DDD. 


K. VAN DER TOORN 
B. BECKING 
P. W. VAN DER HORST 


November, 1994 


`- PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION 


The first edition of DDD, published in the summer of 1995, had to go through two 
printings in order to meet the demands of the market. The success of the book, also in 
terms of its academic standing, is a source of pride and gratitude for the editors and the 
many contributors. The ongoing demand for DDD provided its editorial team also with 
an excellent opportunity to take a fresh look at the first edition in view of the prepar- 
ation of a second, revised, edition. Many of the lacunae and occasional errors in DDD!, 
signalled to us by friends and colleagues, could thus be repaired. The present thorough- 
ly revised edition of DDD contains some thirty new entries. a host of additions and 
corrections to articles from the first edition, and important bibliographical updates. 
The formula of the book has remained unaltered, but it has become richer and more 
rigorous in its contents. 

The editors gratefully acknowledge the help of Frans van Koppen (Leiden) in the 
preparatory stages of the new manuscript. Ab de Jong (Leiden), Frans van Koppen 
(Leiden), Koos van Leeuwen (Utrecht), Mirjam Muis (Utrecht), Gerard Mussies 
(Utrecht), and Sil Timmerman (Utrecht) assisted the editors in reading the proofs. 
Aemold van Gosliga (Leiden) was instrumental in the type-setting of the manuscript. 
Barsaum Can (Leiden) prepared new indices. Their joint efforts have resulted in the 
present book, which the editors hope and trust will meet with as favourable a reception 
as the first edition. 


K. VAN DER TOORN 
B. BECKING 
P. W. VAN DER Horst 


August, 1998 


Akk 
Ar 
Aram 


ca. 
chap(s). 
col(s). 
Copt 


DN 


Eg 
Eng 
Eth 
fig(s). 


Gk 
Heb 
Hit 
Hurr 
IE 


LXX 


GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS 


Akkadian 
Arabic 
Aramaic 

book 

century 

circa 
chapter(s) 
column(s) 
Coptic 
Deuteronomist 
divine name 
Deuteronomistic redactor(s) 
Elohist 
Egyptian 
English 
Ethiopic 
figure(s) 
Festschrift 
Greek (versions) 
Greek 

Hebrew 

Hittite 

Hurrian 
Indo-European 
Yahwist 

Latin 
Septuagint 


MB 
ms(s) 
MT 
n(n). 
no(s). 
NT 


obv. 
OG 
OL 
OSA 
OT 
P 
p(p). 
Pers 
Phoen 
pl(s). 
PN 
QL 


Middle Babylonian 
manuscript(s) 
Masoretic Text 
note(s) 

number(s) 

New Testament 
obverse 

Old Greek 

Old Latin 

Old South Arabic 
Old Testament 
Priestly Document 
page(s) 

Persian 
Phoenician 
plate(s) 

personal name 
Qumran Literature 
reverse 

section 

Sumerian 

Syriac 

Ugaritic 

verse(s) 

Vulgate 

Vetus Latina 


ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLICAL BOOKS (INCLUDING THE APOCRYPHA) 


Gen 
Exod 
Lev 
Num 
Deut 
Josh 
Judg 
1-2 Sam 
1-2 Kgs 
Isa 

Jer 
Ezek 
Hos 
Joel 
Obad 
Amos 
Jonah 
Mic 


Nah 
Hab 
Zeph 
Hag 
Zech 
Mal 
Ps (pl.: Pss) 
Job 
Prov 
Ruth 
Cant 


Eccl (or Qoh) 
Lam 


Esth 
Dan 
Ezra 
Neh 
1-2 Chr 


1-2-3-4 Kgdms 
Add Esth 
Bar 

Bel 

1-2 Esdr 

4 Ezra 

Jdt 

Ep Jer 
1-2-3-4 Macc 
Pr Azar 

Pr Man 

Sir 

Sus 

Tob 

Wis 

Matt 

Mark 

Luke 


XXII 


John 
Acts 
Rom 
1-2 Cor 
Gal 
Eph 


ABBREVIATIONS 
Phil Heb 
Col Jas 
1-2 Thess 1-2 Pet 
1-2 Tim 1-2-3 John 
Titus Jude 
Phim Rev 


ABBREVIATIONS OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHICAL AND EARLY PATRISTIC WORKS 


Adam and Eve 
2-3 Apoc. Bar 
Apoc. Mos. 
Ass. Mos. 
1-2-3 Enoch 
Ep. Arist. 
Jub. 
Mart. Isa. 
Odes Sol. 
Or. Jo. 
Pss. Sol. 
Sib. Or. 
T. 12 Patr. 
T. Levi 
T. Benj. 
Acts Pil. 
Apoc. Pet. 
Gos. Eb. 
Gos. Eg. 
Gos. Heb. 
Gos. Naas. 
Gos. Pet. 
Gos. Thom. 
Prot. Jas. 
Barn. 
1-2 Clem. 
Did. 
Diogn. 
Herm. Man. 
Sim. 
Vis. 
Ign. Eph. 
Magn. 
Phld. 
Pol. 
Rom. 
Smyr. 
Trall. 
LAB 
Mart. Pol. 
Pol. Phil. 


Books of Adam and Eve 

Syriac, Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 

Apocalypse of Moses 

Assumption of Moses 

Ethiopic, Slavonic, Hebrew Enoch 

Epistle of Aristeas 

Jubilees 

Martyrdom of Isaiah 

Odes of Solomon 

Prayer of Joseph 

Psalms of Solomon 

Sibylline Oracles 

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 

Testament of Levi 

Testament of Benjamin, etc. 

Acts of Pilate 

Apocalypse of Peter 

Gospe! of the Ebionites 

Gospe! of the Egyptians g 

Gospel of the Hebrews 

Gospel of the Naassenes 

Gospel of Peter 

Gospe! of Thomas 

Protevangelium of James 

Barnabas 

1-2 Clement 

Didache | 

Diognetus 

Hermas, Mandate 
Similitude 
Vision 

Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians 
Letter to the Magnesians 
Letter to the Philadelphians 
Letter to Polycarp 
Letter to the Romans 
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 
Letter to the Trallians 

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 

Martyrdom of Polycarp 

Polycarp to the Philippians 


ABBREVIATIONS XXIII 


ABBREVIATIONS OF DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND RELATED TEXTS 


CD 
Hev 
Mas 
Mird 
Mur 
p 


Q 
1Q, 2Q, 3Q, ete. 


IQapGen 
1QH 
1QIsa%> 
1QpHab 
1QM 

1QS 

1QSa 
1QSb 
3Q15 
4QFlor 
4Q Mess ar 
4QPrNab 
4QTestim 
4QTLevi 
4QPhyl 
11QMelch 
11QTgJob 


Frg. Tg. 
Pal. Tgs. 
Sam. Tg. 
Tg. Esth I ‘and’ I 
Tg. Isa, 
Tg. Ket. 
Tg. Neb. 
Tg. Neof. 
Tg. Ong. 
Tg. Ps.-J. 
Tg. Yer. I 
Tg. Yer. Il 
Yem. Tg. 


Cairo (Geniza text of) Damascus (Document) 

Nahal Hever texts 

Masada texts 

Khirbet Mird texts 

Wadi Murabba‘at 

Pesher (commentary) 

Qumran 

Numbered caves of Qumran, yielding written material: followed by 
abbreviation of biblical or apocryphal book 

Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave | 

Hódáyót (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave | 

First or second copy of Isaiah from Qumran Cave | 

Pesher on Habakkuk from Qumran Cave | 

Milhama (War scroll) 

Serek Hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline) 
Appendix A (Rule of the Congregation) to 1QS 

Appendix B (Blessings) to 1QS 

Copper Scroll from Qumran Cave 3 

Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Qumran Cave 4 
Aramaic “Messianic™ text from Qumran Cave 4 

Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran Cave 4 

Testimonia text from Qumran Cave 4 

Testament of Levi from Qumran Cave 4 

Phylacteries from Qumran Cave 4 

Melchizedek text from Qumran Cave 4 

Targum of Job from Qumran Cave 11 


ABBREVIATIONS OF TARGUMIC MATERIAL 


Fragmentary Targum 
Palestinian Targums 
Samaritan Targum 

First ‘and’ Second Targum of Esther 
Targum of Isaiah 

Targum of the Writings 
Targum of the Prophets 
Targum Neofiti 1 

Targum Onqelos 

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 
Targum Yerushalmi I 
Targum Yerushalmi I 
Yemenite Targum 


ABBREVIATIONS OF PERIODICALS, REFERENCE WORKS, AND SERIES 


AAA 
AAAS 
AASF 
AASOR 


AB 
AbB 


ABD 
ABL 


ABRT 


Aeg 

AfO 

AfO Beih. 
AGH 
AGJU 
AHAW 
AHW 
AION 
AIPHOS 


AJA 
AJBA 


AJP 
AJSL 


AKKGE 


AKM 


Annals of Archaeology and 
Anthropology 

Annales archéologiques arabes 
Syriennes 

Annales Academiae Scientiarum 
Fennicae 

Annual of the American Schools of 
Oriental Research 

Anchor Bible 

Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift 
und Ubersetzung 

Anchor Bible Dictionary 

R. F. HARPER, Assyrian and 
Babylonian Letters 

J. A. CRAIG, Assyrian and 
Babylonian Religious Texts 

Antiquité classique 

Acta Orientalia 

Annual of the Department of 
Antiquities of Jordan 

C. H. W. JOHNS, Assyrian Deeds 
and Documents 

Abhandlungen des Deutschen 
Palástinavercins 

Ágyptologische Abhandlungen 

Agypten und Altes Testament 

Agyptologische Forschungen 

A. H. GARDINER, Ancient Egyptian 
Onomastica 

Aegyptus 

Archiv fiir Orientforschung 

AfO Beiheft 

E. EpELING, Die akkadische 
Gebetsserie “Handerhebung” 

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken 
Judentums und des Urchristentums 

Abhandlungen der Heidelberger 
Akademie der Wissenschaften 

W. von SODEN, Akkadisches 
Handwórterbuch 

Annali dell'Istituto orientale di 
Napoli 

Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie 
et d'histoire orientales et slaves 

American Journal of Archaeology 

Australian Journal of Biblical 
Archaeology 

American Journal of Philology 

American Journal of Semitic 
Languages and Literature 

K. TaLLovIsT, Akkadische Götter- 
epitheta (= StOr 7) 

Abhandlungen für die Kunde des 
Morgenlandes 


AKT 
ALASP 


ALBO 


ALGHJ 
ALGRM 
AIT 
ALUOS 
AMI 
AnBib 
AncSoc 
ANEP 
ANET 
AnOr 
ANQ 
ANRW 
AnSt 
AntAfr 


Anton 
AOAT 
AoF 
APAW 


APOT 


ARAB 


Arch 
ARE 


ARES 
ARI 
ARM 
ARMT 
ArOr 
ARTU 


ARW 


Ankara Kiiltepe Tabletleri (1990) 

Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt- 
Syriens-Palástinas 

Analecta Lovaniensa Biblica et 
Orientalia 

Arbeiten zur Literatur und 
Geschichte des Hellenistischen 
Judentums 

Ausführliches Lexikon der griechi- 
schen und rémischen Mythologie, 
cd. W. H. Roscher (= LGRM) 

D. J. WISEMAN, Alalah Texts 

Annual of the Leeds University 
Oriental Society 

Archäologische Mitteilungen aus 
Iran 

Analecta Biblica 

Ancient Society 

The Ancient Near East in Pictures, 
ed. J. B. Pritchard 

Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. 
J. B. Pritchard 

Analecta Orientalia 

Andover Newton Quarterly 

Aufstieg und Niedergang der 
Römischen Welt 

Anatolian Studies 

Antiquités Africaines 

Arbeiten zur Neutestamentliche 
Textforschung 

Antonianum 

Alter Orient und Altes Testament 

Altorientalische Forschungen 

Abhandlungen der Preussischen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
Berlin 

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of 
the Old Testament, ed. R. H. 
Charles 

D. D. LUCKENBILL, Ancient Records 
of Assyria and Babylonia 

Archaeology 

Ancient Records of Egypt, ed. J. H. 
Breasted 

Archivi reali di Ebla, studi 

Archivi reali di Ebla, testi 

A. K. GRAYSON, Assyrian Royal 
Inscriptions 

Archives royales de Mari 

Archives royales de Mari, Textes 

Archiv Orientálnt 

J. C. DE Moor, An Anthology of 
Religious Texts from Ugarit 

Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft 


AS 
ASAE 


ASAW 


ASNU 
ASOR 
ASSR 
ASTI 
ATANT 
Atr. 

AuA 
Aug 
AulOr 
AulOrSup 
AUSS 
BA 

Bab. 
BAe 
BAGB 


BAGD 


BagM 
BAM 


BAR 
BARev 
BASOR 
BASP 


BBB 
BBR 


BBVO 
BCH 
BD 
BDB 


BdE 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Assyriological Studies (Chicago) 

Annales du service des antiquités de 
l'Egypte 

Abhandlungen der Sächsischen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
Phil.-hist. Kl., Berlin 

Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici 
Upsaliensis 

American Schools of Oriental 
Research 

Archives des sciences sociales des 
religions 

Annual of the Swedish Theological 
Institute 

Abhandlungen zur Theologie des 
Alten und Neuen Testaments 

W. G. LAMBERT & A. R. MILLARD, 
Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story 
of the Flood 

Antike und Abendland 

Augustinianum 

Aula Orientalis 

Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 

Andrews University Seminary 
Studies 

Biblical Archaeologist 

Babyloniaca 

Bibliotheca Aegyptica 

Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume 
Budé 

W. BAUER, W. F. ARNDT, F. W. 
GINGRICH & F. W. DANKER, 
Greek-English Lexicon of the New 
Testament 

Baghdader Mitteilungen 

F. KÖCHER, Die babylonisch-assyri- 
sche Medizin in Texten und 
Untersuchungen 

Biblical Archaeologist Reader 

Biblical Archaeology Review 

Bulletin of the American Schools of 
Oriental Research 

Bulletin of the American Society of 
Papyrologists 

Bonner Biblische Beiträge 

H. ZIMMERN, Beiträge zur Kenntnis 
der babylonischen Religion 

Berliner Beiträge zum vorderen 
Orient 

Bulletin de correspondance helléni- 
que 

Book of the Dead 

F. Brown, S. R. DRIVER & C. A. 
BriGGS, Hebrew and English 
Lexicon of the Old Testament 

Bibliothéque d'étude, Institut 
français d'archéologie orientale 


BDR 

BE 
BEATAJ 
BeO 
BETL 
BG 


BHH 


BHK 
BHS 
Bib 
BibOr 
BibTS 
BICS 
BIES 
BIFAO 


BiMes 
BIN 


BiOr 
BIOSCS 
BJR(U)L 


BJS 
BKAT 


BM 


BMC 
BMS 


BN 
Bo. 


BoSt 
BR 

BRA 
BRL? 
BRM 


BSFE 


XXV 


F. BLASS, A. DEBRUNNER & 
F. REHKOPF, Grammatik des neu- 
testamentlichen Griechisch 

Babylonian Expedition of the 
University of Pennsylvania, Series 
A: Cuneiform Texts 

Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten 
Testaments und des alten 
Judentums 

Bibbia e oriente 

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum 
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 

Berolinensis Gnosticus 

Biblisch-Historisches 
Handwórterbuch, ed. B. Reicke & 
L. Rost 

Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. Kittel 

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia 

Biblica 

Biblica et Orientalia 

Biblisch-theologische Schwerpunkte 

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical 
Studies 

Bulletin of the Israel Exploration 
Society (= Yediot) 

Bulletin de l'Institut français 
d'archéologie orientale 

Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 

Babylonian Inscriptions in the 
Collection of J. B. Nies 

Bibliotheca Orientalis 

Bulletin of the International 
Organisation for Septuagint and 
Cognate Studies 

Bulletin of the John Rylands 
(University) Library 

Brown Judaic Studies 

Biblischer Kommentar: Altes 
Testament 

tablets in the collections of the 
British Museum 

British Museum Coin Catalogues 

L. W. KiNc, Babylonian Magic and 
Sorcery 

Biblische Notizen 

field numbers of tablets excavated at 
Boghazkóy 

Boghazk6i-Studien 

Biblical Research 

Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte 
des Altertums 

Biblisches Reallexikon, ed. 
K. Galling 

Babylonian Records in the Library 
of J. Pierpont Morgan 

Bulletin de la Société française 
d'égypiologie 


XXVI 


BSOAS 


BullEpigr 
BWANT 


BWL 


BZ 
BZAW 
BZNW 
BZRGG 
CAD 


CAH 
CANE 
CBET 
CBQ 
CBQMS 
CCDS 
CCSL 
CCT 
CdE 
CIG 
CIJ 


CIL 
CIMRM 


CIS 


CML 
ConB 
CPJ 
CPSI 
CQ 
CRAIBL 


CRB 
CRINT 


CRRA 


CTA 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Bulletin of the School of Oriental 
and African Studies 

Bulletin épigraphique 

Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom 
Alten und Neuen Testament 

W. G. LAMBERT, Babylonian 
Wisdom Literature 

Biblische Zeitschrift 

Beihefte zur ZAW 

Beihefte zur ZNW 

Beihefte zur ZRGG 

The Assyrian Dictionary of the 
Oriental Institute of the University 
of Chicago 

Cambridge Ancient History 

Civilizations of the Ancient Near 
East, ed. J. M. Sasson 

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis 
and Theology 

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 

CBQ Monograph Series 

Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae 

Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 

Cunciform Texts from Cappadocian 
Tablets 

Chronique d'Egypte 

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecorum 

Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum 

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum 

Corpus Inscriptionum et 
Monumentorum Religionis 
Mithriacae 

Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum 

Classical Journal 

Cunciform Monographs 

J. C. L. GiBsoN, Canaanite Myths 
and Legends 

Coniectanea Biblica 

Classical Philology 

Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum 

Corpus of Proto-Sinaitic 
Inscriptions, ed. J. Biggs & 
M. Dijkstra 

Classical Quarterly 

Comptes rendues de l'Académie des 
inscriptions et belles lettres 

Cahiers de la Revue biblique 

Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad 
Novum Testamentum 

Compte rendu, Rencontre assyriolo- 
gique internationale 

Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian 
Tablets 

Coffin Texts 

A. HERDNER, Corpus des tablettes 
alphabétiques 


CTH 


CTM 
DAGR 


DBAT 


E. LAROCHE, Catalogue des textes 
hittites 

Calwer Theologische Monographien 

Dictionnaire des antiquités grec- 
ques et romaines, ed. C. V. 
Daremberg & E. Saglio 

Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten 
Testament 


DBATBeih Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten 


DBSup 
Dendara 


DISO 


DJD 
DLU 


DNWSI 


DOTT 


EdF 
Edfou 


Ee 
EKK 


Emar 


EncBibl 
Enclsl 
EncJud 
EncMiqr 
EPRO 


ER 
ERE 
Erlsr 
ErJb 
ESE 


Esna 
ETL 


EWNT 


ExpTim 
FAOS 


Testament, Beiheft 
Dictionaire de la Bible, Supplément 
E. CHassinaT & F. Daumas, Le 

temple de Dendara 
C.-F. JEAN & J. HOFTUZER, 

Dictionnaire des inscriptions sémi- 

tiques de l'ouest 
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 
G. DEL OLMO LETE & J. 

SANMARTIN, Diccionaria de la 

lengua Ugarttica 
J. HOFTUZER & K. JONGELING, 

Dictionary of the North-West 

Semitic Inscriptions 
Documents from Old Testament 

Times, cd. D. W. Thomas 
J. A. KNUDTZON, Die El-Amarna- 

Tafeln (= VAB 2); EA 359-379: 

A. RAINEY, El Amarna Tablets 

359-379 (= AOAT 8) 

Ertráge der Forschung 
M. DE ROCHEMONTEIX & 

E. CHassinaT, Le temple d'’Edfou 
Enuma Elish 
Evangelisch-Katholischer 

Kommentar 
D. ARNAUD, Recherches au pays 

d'Astata. Emar VI.1-4 
Encyclopedia Biblica, London 
Encyclopedia of Islam 
Encyclopedia Judaica 
Entsiqlopédia Migra’it, Jerusalem 
Etudes préliminaires aux religions 

orientales dans l'empire romain 
Encyclopedia of Religion 
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 
Eretz Israel 
Eranos Jahrbuch 
Ephemeris für Semitische 

Epigraphik 
S. SAUNERON, Le temple d'Esna 
Ephemerides Theologicae 

Lovanienses 
Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum 

Neuen Testament 
Expository Times 
Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 


FAT 
FGH 


FRLANT 


FS 
GAG 


Ges. V? 


Ges.18 


GGA 
Gilg. 
GK 


GLAJJ 


GM 
GNT 
GOF 
GRBS 


GTA 
HAB 


HALAT 


HAR 
HAT 
HAW 


HdO 
Hey 
HIROTP 


Hisl 


HNT 
HR 
HSCP 


HSM 
HSS 
HTKNT 


HTR 
HTS 
HUCA 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Forschungen zum Alten Testament 

Forschungen und Fortschritte 

Fragmente der griechischen 
Historiker, ed. F. Jacoby 

Forschungen zur Religion und 
Literatur des Alten und Neuen 
Testaments 

Festschrift 

Forschungen zur Bibel 

W. VON SODEN, Grundriss der 
akkadischen Grammatik 

W. GESENIUS, Hebrdisches und 
aramäisches Handwörterbuch. 
(17th. ed.) 

W. GESENIUS, Hebrdisches und 
aramiiisches Handworterbuch, 
(18th. ed.) 

Gättingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 

Gilgamesh epic 

Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik, 
28th ed., ed. E. Kautzsch 

M. STERN, Greek and Latin Authors 
on Jews and Judaism 

Göttinger Miszellen 

Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament 

Göttinger Orientforschungen 

Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies 

Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 

Hamburger Ägyptologische 
Beiträge 

W. BAUMGARTNER et al., 
Hebräisches und Aramäisches 
Lexikon zum Alten Testament 

Hebrew Annual Review 

Handbuch zum Alten Testament 

Handbuch der Altertuins-wissen- 
schaften 

Handbuch der Orientalistik 

Heythrop Journal 

R. ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite 
Religion in the Old Testament 
Period (2 vols.) 

Handwórterbuch der [slam (Leiden 
1941) 

Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 

History of Religion 

Harvard Studies in Classical 
Philology 

Harvard Semitic Monographs 

Harvard Semitic Studies 

Herders Theologischer Kommentar 
zum Neuen Testament 

Harvard Theological Review 

Harvard Theological Studies 

Hebrew Union College Annual 


IBHS 


IBS 
ICC 
IDB 


IDBS 


[Délos 
IEJ 
IFAO 


IG 
IGLS 


IGR 


IJT 
IKymie 
IM 


Int 
IOS 
IPN 


IrAnt 
ISBE 
JA 
JAAR 
JAC 
JANES 
JAOS 
JARCE 
JAS 
JB 
JBL 
JCS 
JDS 
JEA 
JEN 


JEOL 
JESHO 


JETS 


JHNES 
JHS 


XXVII 


B. K. WALTKE & M. O'Connor, 
An Introduction to Biblical 
Hebrew Syntax 

Irish Biblical Studies 

International Critical Commentary 

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the 
Bible 

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the 
Bible, Supplementary Volume 

Inscriptions de Délos 

Israel Exploration Journal 

Institut francais d'archéologie orien- 
tale 

Inscriptiones Graecae 

Inscriptions grecques et latines de 
la Syrie 

Inscriptiones Graecae ad res 
Romanas pertinentes 

Indian Journal of Theology 

Inschriften von Kyme 

tablets in the collections of the Iraq 
Museum, Baghdad 

Interpretation 

Israel Oriental Society 

M. Notn, Die israelitischen 
Personennamen 

Iranica Antiqua 

International Standard Bible 
Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., ed. G. W. 
Bromiley 

Journal asiatique 

Journal of the American Academy of 
Religion 

Jahrbuch fiir Antike und 
Christentum 

Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern 
Society of Columbia University 

Journal of the American Oriental 
Society 

Journal of the American Research 
Center in Egypt 

Journal of Asian Studies 

Jerusalem Bible 

Journal of Biblical Literature 

Journal of Cuneiform Studies 

Judaean Desert Studies 

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 

Joint Expedition with the Iraq 
Museum at Nuzi 

Jaarbericht ... Ex Oriente Lux 

Journal of the Economic and Social 
History of the Orient 

Journal of the Evangelical 
Theological Society 

Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies 

Journal of Hellenic Studies 


XXVIII 


JIS 
JNES 
JNSL 
JPOS 
JPSV 
JQR 
JR 
JRAS 
JRelS 
JRH 
JRS 
JSHRZ 


JSJ 


JSJS 


JSNT 
JSNTSup 
JSOT 
JSOTSup 
JSP 


JSS 
JSSEA 


JSSR 


JTS 


KBo 
KEK 
KHAT 


KJV 


ABBREVIATIONS 
Journal of Jewish Studies KIF 
Journal of Near Eastern Studies KP 
Journal of Northwest Semitic KS 
Languages KTU 
Journal of the Palestine Oriental 
Society 
Jewish Publication Society KTU? 
Translation of the Bible 
Jewish Quarterly Review 
Journal of Religion 
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 
Journal of Religious Studies 
Journal of Religious History KUB 
Journal of Roman Studies LAS 
Jüdische Schriften aus LAPO 
Hellenistisch-Rómischer Zeit 
Journal for the Study of Judaism in LAS 
the Persian, Hellenistic and 
Roman Periods LAW 
Supplements to the Journal for the LCL 
Study of Judaism in the Persian, LdA 
Hellenistic and Roman Periods Legends 
Journal for the Study of the New 
Testament Lei 
Journal for the Study of the New LfgrE 
Testament, Supplement Series LIMC 
Journal for the Study of the Old 
Testament LKA 
Journal for the Study of the Old 
Testament, Supplement Series LKU 
Journal for the Study of the 
Pseudepigrapha LSAM 
Journal of Semitic Studies 
Journal of the Society for the Study LSCG 
of Egyptian Antiquities 
Journal for the Scientific Study of LSJ 
Religion 
Journal of Theological Studies LSS 
tablets in the Kouyunjik collections LTK 
of the British Museum LUA 
H. DONNER & W. ROLLIG, MAD 
Kanaandische und aramdische s 
Inschriften MAS 
E. EBELING, Keilschrifttexte aus MAIS 
Assur religiösen Inhalts , 
Kommentar zum Alten Testament MAMA 
E. EBELING, Keilschrifttexte aus Maqlu 
Assur verschiedenen Inhalts MARI 
L. KOEHLER & W. BAUMGARTNER, 
Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti MDAIK 
libros 
Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 
Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar MDOG 
Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten 
Testament MDP 
King James Version MEE 


Kleinasiatische Forschungen 

Kleine Pauly 

Kleine Schriften 

M. Dietricn, O. Loretz & 
J. SANMARTIN, Die keil-alphabeti- 
sche Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT 24) 

M. Dietricn, O. Loretz « J. 
SANMARTIN, Die keil-alphabeti- 
sche Texte aus Ugarit; second 
enlarged edition: The Cuneiform 
Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras 
Ibn Hani and Other Places. 

Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkói 

Leipziger Agyptologische Studien 

Littératures anciennes du Proche- 
Orient 

S. PARPOLA, Letters of Assyrian 
Scholars (AOAT 5) 

Lexikon der Alten Welt 

Loeb Classical Library 

Lexikon der Agyptologie 

L. GINZBERG, The Legends of the 
Jews 

Leionénu 

Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos 

Lexicon Iconographicum 
Mythologiae Classicae 

E. EBELING, Literarische 
Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 

A. FALKENSTEIN, Literarische 
Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk 

Lois sacrées de l'Asie Mineure, ed. 
F. Sokolowski 

Lois sacrées des cités grecques, ed. 
F. Sokolowski 

LIDDELL-SCOTT-JONES, Greek- 
English Lexicon 

Leipziger semitische Studien 

Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 

Lunds Universitets Årsskrift 

Materials for the Assyrian 
Dictionary 

Münchener Ägyptologische Studien 

Missione archeologica italiana in 
Siria 

Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua 

G. MEIER, Maqlu (= AfO Beiheft 2) 

MARI Annales de recherches inter- 
disciplinaires 

Mitteilungen des Deutschen 
Archáologischen Instituts, 
Abteilung Kairo 

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient- 
Gesellschaft 

Mémoires de la délégation en Perse 

Materiali epigrafici di Ebla 


MEFR(A) 
MGWJ 
MIO 

MM 


Mnem 
MRS 
MSL 
Mus 
MusHelv 
MUSJ 


MVAÀG 
NABU 
NAWG 
NBL 


NCB 
NEB 
NedTTs 
Neot 
NESE 


NewDocs 


NHC 
NHS 
NorTT 
NovT 
NovTSup 
NRSV 
NTOA 


NTS 
NTStud 
NTTS 


Numen 


OBO 
OBTR 


OCD 
OECT 
OGIS 


OIP 
OLA 
OLD 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoi- 
re de l'École francaise (antiquité) 

Monatsschrift für Geschichte und 
Wissenschaft des Judentums 

Mitteilungen des Instituts für 
Orientforschung 

J.H. MoULTON & G. MILLIGAN, The 
Vocabulary of the Greek 
Testament 

Mnemosyne 

Mission de Ras Shamra 

Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 

Le Muséon 

Museum Helveticum 

Mélanges de l'Université Saint- 
Joseph 

Mitteilungen der Vorder-Asiatisch- 
Agyptischen Gesellschaft 

Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et 
utilitaires 

Nachrichten von der Akademie der 
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 

Neues Bibel-Lexikon, ed. M. Görg & 
B. Lang 

New Century Bible 

New English Bible 

Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 

Neotestamentica 

Neue Ephemeris für Semitische 
Epigraphik 

New Documents Illustrating Early 
Christianity, ed. G. H. R. Horsley 

Nag Hammadi Codex 

Nag Hammadi Studies 

Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift 

Novum Testamentum 

Novum Testamentum Supplements 

New Revised Standard Version 

Novum Testamentum et Orbis 
Antiquus 

New Testament Studies 

Nieuwe Theologische Studiën 

New Testament Tools and Studies 

Numen: International Review for the 
History of Religions 

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 

S. DALLEY, C. B. F. WALKER & 
J. D. HAWKINS, Old Babylonian 
Texts from Tell Rimah 

Oxford Classical Dictionary 

Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 

Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones 
Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger 

Oriental Institute Publications 

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 

Oxford Latin Dictionary 


OLP 
OLZ 
OMRO 


Or 
OrAnt 
OrChr 
OrSu 
OrSyr 
OTL 
OTP 


OTS 
PAAJR 


PAPS 


PBS 


PEFQS 


PEQ 
PG 
PGM 


Philol 
PhilQuart 
PIFAO 


PJ 
PL 
PLRE 


PMG 
POS 
POxy 
PRU 
PSBA 
PVTG 
PW 
PWSup 


r. 


Qad 
QDAP 


XXIX 


Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 

Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit 
het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te 
Leiden 

Orientalia 

Oriens Antiquus 

Oriens Christianus 

Orientalia Suecana 

l'Orient syrien 

Old Testament Library 

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 
ed. J. H. Charlesworth 

Oudtestamentische Studiën 

Proceedings of the American 
Academy of Jewish Research 

Proceedings of the American 
Philosophical Society 

Publications of the Babylonian 
Section, University Museum, 
University of Pennsylvania 

Palestine Exploration Fund, 
Quarterly Statement 

Palestine Exploration Quarterly 

Patrologia Graeca, cd. J. Migne 

Papyri Graecae Magicae, ed. 
K. Preisendanz 

Philologus 

Philosophical Quarterly 

Publications de l’Institut français 
d'archéologie orientale du Caire 

Palästina-Jahrbuch 

Patrologia Latina, ed. J. Migne 

Prosopography of the Later Roman 
Empire 

Poetae Melici Graeci 

Pretoria Oriental Series 

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 

Palais royal d'Ugarit 

Proceedings of the Society of 
Biblical Archaeology 

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti 
Graeca 

PAULY-WissOWA, Realencyclopddie 
der klassischen Altertums- 
wissenschaft 

Supplement to PW 

K. SETHE, Die altügyptischen 
Pyramidentexte 

Qadmoniot 

Questiones Disputatac 

Quarterly of the Department of 
Antiquities in Palestine 

H. C. RAWLINSON, The Cuneiform 
Inscriptions of Western Asia 

Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéolo- 
gie orientale 


XXX 


RAAM 


REg 
REG 
REJ 

REL 
RES 
RevQ 
RevScRel 
RevSem 
RGG 


RGRW 
RGTC 
RGVV 
RHA 
RhMus 
RHPR 


RHR 
RIH 


RIMA 


RivBib 
RivStorAnt 
RLA 

RQ 


RR 
RS 


RSF 
RSO 
RSOu 


ABBREVIATIONS 
H. Gerse, M. HÖFNER & RSP 
K. Rupo pu, Die Religionen 
Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der RSR 
Mandder RSV 
Reallexikon für Antike und RT 
Christentum 
F. THUREAU-DANGIN, Rituels acca- 
diens RTL 
H. Bonnet, Reallexikon der Ggypti- SAA 
schen Religionsgeschichte SAAB 
Records of the Ancient Near East SAK 
Revue Archéologique SANE 
Revue Biblique SB 
Die Religionen der Menschheit 
Realencyclopiidie ftir protestanti- SBAW 
sche Theologie und Kirche 
Revue des études anciennes SBB 
Revised English Bible SBH 
Regional Epigraphic Catalogue of 
Asia Minor 
Revue d'égyptologie SBLDS 
Revue des études grecques 
Revue des études juives SBLEJL 
Revue des études latines 
Répertoire d'épigraphie sémitique SBLMS 
Revue de Qumran SBLSBS 
Revue des sciences religieuses SBLTT 
Revue sémitique SBLWAW 
Die Religion in Geschichte und SBS 
Gegenwart (31957-1965) SBT 
Religions in the Graeco-Roman SBTU 
World SCHNT 
Répertoire géographique des textes 
cunéiformes SCR 
Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche ScrHier 
und Vorarbeiten SDAW 
Revue hittite et asianique 
Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie SEÀ 
Revue d'histoire et de philosophie Sef 
religieuses SEG 
Revue de l'histoire des religions 
field numbers of tablets excavated at SEL 
Ras Ibn-Hani Sem 
The Royal Inscriptions of SGDI 
Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 
Rivista Biblica Italiana 
Rivista di storia antica SGL 


Reallexikon der Assyriologie 

Römisches Quartalschrift für christ- 
liche Altertumskunde und 
Kirchengeschichte 

Review of Religion 

field numbers of tablets excavated at 
Ras Shamra 

Rivista di studi fenici 

Rivista degli studi orientali 

Ras Shamra - Ougarit 


Ras Shamra Parallels, ed. 

S. Rummel (AnOr 51; Rome 1981) 
Recherches de science religieuse 
Revised Standard Version 
Recueil de travaux relatifs à la phi- 

lologie et à l'archéologie égyptien- 

nes ef assyriennes 
Revue théologique de Louvain 
State Archives of Assyria 
State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 
Studien zur Altigyptischen Kultur 
Sources from the Ancient Near East 
Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden 
aus Aegypten 
Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften 
Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 
G. A. REISNER, Sumerisch-babylo- 

nischen Hymnen nach Thontafeln 

griechischer Zeit 
Society of Biblical Literature 

Dissertation Series 
SBL, Early Judaism and Its 

Literature 
SBL Monograph Series 
SBL Sources for Biblical Studies 
SBL Texts and Translations 
SBL Writings of the Ancient World 
Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 
Studies in Biblical Theology 
Spéátbabylonische Texte aus Uruk 
Studia ad Corpus Hellenisticum 

Novi Testamenti 
Studies in Comparative Religion 
Scripta Hierosolymitana 
Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen 

Akademie der Wissenschaften 
Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 
Sefarad 
Supplementum Epigraphicum 

Graecum 
Studi epigrafici e linguistici 
Semitica 
H. CoLLrTZ et al., Sammlung der 

griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, 4 

vols. (1884-1915) 

A. FALKENSTEIN & J. VAN DUK, 

Sumerische Götterlieder 


SH(C)ANE Studies in the History (and Culture) 


SHT 
SIG 


SIRIS 


SJLA 


of the Ancient Near East 
Studies in Historical Theology 
Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 
ed. W. Dittenberger 
Sylloge inscriptionum religionis 
Isiacae et Sarapiacue, ed. 
L. Vidman 
Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 


SOT 


SL 
SMS 
SMSR 


SNTSMS 


SO 
SOTSMS 


SPAW 


SPhA 
SR 
SRT 


SSEAJ 


SSS 
ST 
StAeg 
STBoT 
STDJ 


StEb 
StOr 
StPsm 
STT 
Su-B 
StScm 
StudNeot 
SUNT 

5 urpu 


SVF 
SVTP 


Syll. 
Tákultu 


TAM 
TANZ 


TCGNT 
TCL 


TCS 
TDNT 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Scandinavian Journal of the Old 
Testament 

A. DEIMEL, Sumerisches Lexikon 

Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 

Studi e Materiali di Storia delle 
Religioni 

Society for New Testament Studies 
Monograph Series 

Sources orientales 

Society for Old Testament Studies 
Monograph Series 

Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 
Phil.-hist. K1., Berlin 

Studia Philonica Annual 

Studies in Religion 

E. CHIERA, Sumerian Religious 
Texts 

Society for the Study of Egyptian 
Antiquities Journal 

Semitic Studies Series 

Studia Theologica 

Studia Aegyptiaca 

Studien zu den Bogazkóy-Texten 

Studies in the Texts of the Desert of 
Judah 

Studi Eblaiti 

Studia Orientalia 

Studia Pohl Series Maior 

O. R. GURNEY, J. J. FINKELSTEIN & 
P. HULIN, The Sultantepe Tablets 

(H. STRACK &] P. BILLERBECK, 
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 
aus Talmud und Midrasch 

Studi Semitici 

Studia Neotestamentica 

Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen 
Testaments 

E. REINER, Surpu (= AfO Beiheft 
11) 

Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 

Studia in Veteris Testamenti 
Pseudepigrapha 

Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 
ed. W. Dittenberger 

R. FRANKENA, Takultu, De sacrale 
maaltijd in het assyrische ritueel 

Tituli Asiae Minoris 

Texte und Arbeiten zum Neutesta- 
mentlichen Zeitalter 

B. M. METZGER, A Textual 
Commentary on the Greek New 
Testament 

Textes cunéiformes du Louvre 

Texts from Cuneiform Sources 

Theological Dictionary of the New 
Testament, ed. R. Kittel & 


TDOT 
TDP 
TGF 
THAT 


ThStud 
ThZ 
TIM 
TLZ 
™ 
TRE 
TRev 
TRu 
TSAJ 


TSK 
TSS! 


TUAT 


TWAT 


TWAT 


UBL 
UCOP 


UET 


UFBG 


UM 
UNT 


UPZ 


Urk. M 


Urk. IV 


Urk. V 
USQR 


UVB 


XXXI 


G. Friedrich 

Theological Dictionary of the Old 
Testament 

R. LABAT, Traité akkadien de dia- 
gnostics et pronostics médicaux 

Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 

Theologisches Handwórterbuch zum 
Alten Testament, ed. E. Jenni & 
C. W. Westermann 

Theologische Studien 

Theologische Zeitschrift 

Texts in the Irag Museum 

Theologische Literatur Zeitung 

Tell Mardikh, tablets from Ebla 

Theologische Realenzyklopddie 

Theologische Revue 

Theologische Rundschau 

Texte und Studien zum antiken 
Judentum 

Theologische Studien und Kritiken 

J. C. L. GiBSON, Textbook of Syrian 
Semitic Inscriptions 

Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten 
Testaments, ed. O. Kaiser 

Theologisches Worterbuch zum 
Alten Testament, ed. G. J. 
Botterweck & H. Ringgren 

Theologisches Wórterbuch zum 
Neuen Testament, ed. R. Kittel & 
G. Friedrich 

Theologisches Zeitschrift 

Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur 

University of Cambridge Oriental 
Publications 

Ur Excavation Texts 

Ugarit-Forschungen 

W. MAYER, Untersuchungen zur 
Formensprache der babylonischen 
"Gebetsbeschwórungen" (2 StPsm 
5) 

Ugaritica 

C.H. GonDoN, Ugaritic Manual 

Untersuchungen zum Neuen 
Testament 

Urkunden der Ptolemüerzeit, cd. 
U. Wilcken 

K. SETHE, Hieroglyphische 
Urkunden der griechisch-rómi- 
schen Zeit 

K. SETHE, Urkunden der 18. 
Dynastie 

H. Grarow, Religiöse Urkunden 

Union Seminary Quarterly Review 

C. H. Gorpon, Ugaritic Textbook 

Vorláufiger Bericht über die ... 
Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka 
(Berlin, 1930) 


XXXII 


VAB 
VAS 
VAT 


Wb. 


WBC 
WbMyth 


WHJP 
WMANT 


Wo 
WS 
WTJ 
WUNT 


WUS 


ABBREVIATIONS 
Vorderasiatische Bibliothek WVDOG 
Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmiler 
tablets in the collections of the 

Staatliche Museen, Berlin WZ 
Vigiliae Christianae WZKM 
Vicino Oriente 
Vivre et Penser (= RB 19411-1944) YBC 
Vetus Testamentum 
Vetus Testamentum, Supplements YOS 
field numbers of tablets excavated at 

Warka ZA 
Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen ZÄS 

Sprache ZAH 
Word Biblical Commentary ZAW 
Wörterbuch der Mythologie, cd. 

H. W. Haussig ZDMG 
World History of the Jewish People 
Wissenschaftliche Monographien ZDPV 

zum Alten und Neuen Testament 
Welt des Orient ZNW 
Wiener Studien 
Westminster Theological Journal ZPE 
Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen 

zum Neuen Testament ZRGG 
J. AISTLEITNER, Wórterbuch der 

ugaritischen Sprache ZTK 


Wissenschaftliche 
Veróffentlichungen der Deutschen 
Orientgesellschaft 

Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift 

Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des 
Morgenlandes 

tablets in the Babylonian Collection, 
Yale University Library 

Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian 
Texts 

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 

Zeitschrift für ügyptische Sprache 

Zeitschrift fiir Althebraistik 

Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche 
Wissenschaft 

Zeitschrift der Deutschen 
Morgenlündischen Gesellschaft 

Zeitschrift des Deutschen 
Palüstinavereins 

Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche 
Wissenschaft 

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und 
Epigraphik 

Zeitschrift für Religions- und 
Geistesgeschichte 

Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche 


Ab -*Father 
Abaddon 

Abba -*Father 
Abel 

Abomination 
Abraham 

Adam 

Adat 

Addirim | -*Noble Ones 
Adon -*Lord 
Adonay -*Lord; Yahweh 
Adonis 
Adrammelech 
Aeneas 

Agreement 

Ah -*Brother 
Aion 

A] 

Alay —AI 
Aldebaran 

Aliyan 

Allon Oak 
Almah -*Virgin 
Almighty 

Altar 

Ala -*Al 
Aluqqah  -*Vampire 
Am 

Amalek 

Amaltheia 
Amazons 

Amun 

Amurru 

Anakim -*Rephaim 
Anammelech 
Ananke 

Anat 

Ancient of days 
Angel (I) 

Angel (II) 

Angel of death -*Angel 
Angel of Yahweh 
Anthropos 
Antichrist 

Anu -*Heaven 
Aphrodite 

Apis 

Apkallu 

Apollo 


ENTRIES 


Apollyon -*Abaddon; Apollo 
Apsu -*Ends of the earth 
Aqan -'Ya'üq 
Archai 

Archangel 

Archon 

Ares 

Ariel 

Arm 

Arta 

Artemis 

Arvad 

Asham 

Asherah 

Ashhur -*Ishhara 
Ashima 

Ashtoreth — -^Astarte 
Asmodeus 

Assur 

Astarte 

Atargatis 

Athena 

Atum 

Augustus -*Ruler cult 
Authorities 

Avenger 

Aya 

Ayish —>Aldebaran 
Azabbim 

Azazel 


Baal 

Baalat 

Baal toponyms 
Baal-berith 
Baal-gad 
Baal-hamon 
Baal-hazor 
Baal-hermon 
Baal-judah 
Baal-meon 
Baal of Peor 
Baal-perazim 
Baal-shalisha 
Baal-shamem 
Baal-tamar 
Baal-zaphon 
Baal-zebub 
Bacchus 


XXXIV 


Baetyl 

Baga 

Barad 

Baraq -Lightning 
Bashan 

Bashtu 

Bastet 

Beelzebul  -*Baal-zebub 
Behemoth 

Bel -*Marduk 
Belial 

Beliar -*Belial 
Beltu 

Bes 

Bethel 

Blood 

Boaz 

Boshet -*Bashtu 
Breasts-and-womb 
Brother 

Bul -*Calf 


Cain 

Calf 

Carmel 

Castor -*Dioskouroi 
Chaos 

Chemosh 

Cherubim 

Christ 

Claudius Ruler cult 
Clay 

Constellations 
Council 

Creator of All 

Curse 

Cybele 


Dagon 

Daniel 

Daphne 

Datan -*Dedan 
Day 

DayStar -*Helel 
Dead 

Death Mot; Thanatos 
Deber 

Dedan 

Demeter 

Demon 

Derek Way 
Destroyer 
Destruction -Qeteb 
Devil 

Dew 

Diabolos —Devil 


ENTRIES 


Dike 

Dionysus 

Dioskouroi 

Divine beings —>Sons of (the) God(s) 
Dod 

Dominion 

Dove 

Doxa -*Glory 

Dragon 

Dynamis 


Ea -*Aya 

Eagle 

Earth 

Eben -*Stone 

Ed - Witness 

Edom 

Ehad -*One 

El 

El-berith —Baal-berith 
El-creator-of-the-earth 
Elders 

Elemental spirits of the universe — -*Stoicheia 
Elijah 

Eloah 

Elohim -*God (1) 
El-olam 

EI-roi 

El-rophe 

Elyon 

Emim -*Rephaim 
Emmanuel 

Ends of the earth 

Enoch 

Equity -*Misharu 
Eros 

Esau 

Esh -*Fire 

Eshmun 

Etemmu 

Eternity 

Euphrates 

Eve 

Everlasting God ^ El-olam 
Evil Inclination 

Evil spirit of God 
Exalted ones 

Exousiai -*Authorities 


Face 

Falschood 

Familiar spirit ^ Wizard 
Father 

Father of the lights 

Fear of Isaac 

Fire 


First-born of death 
Flame 

Flood -*ld 
Fortuna 


Gabnunnim 

Gabriel 

Gad 

Gaius -*Ruler cult 
Gepen 

Gether 

Ghost -*Spirit of the dead 
Giants 

Gibborim 

Gillulim 

Gir 

Glory 

God (I) 

God (II) 

God of fortresses 

God of heaven 

God of seeing — -*El-roi 
Goddess -*Terebinth 
Go'el 

Gog 

Gush 


Haby 

Hadad 

Hades 

Hail -*Barad 

Ham 

Hamartia -*Sin 
Haoma 

Haran 

Hathor 

Hayin 

He-of-the-Sinai 

Healing God —El-rophe 
Heaven 
Heaven-and-Earth 
Heavenly beings Sons of (the) God(s) 
Hebat 

Hebel -*Abel 

Helel 

Helios 

Hera 

Heracles 

Herem -Taboo 
Hermes 

Hermon 

Heros 

Hobab -*Humbaba 
Hokmah - Wisdom 
Holy and Righteous  -*Hosios kai dikaios 
Holy One 


ENTRIES XXXV 


Holy Spirit 
Horeph 

Horon 

Horus 

Hosios kai dikaios 
Host of heaven 
Hubal 

Hubur 

Humbaba 
Humban 

Hunger -*Mceriri 
Hyacinthus 

Hyle 

Hymenaios 
Hypnos 

Hypsistos 


Ibis 

Id 

Idols -*Azabbim; Gillulim 
Ilib 

Image 

Inanna Ishtar 

Ishhara 

Ishmael 

Ishtar 

Isis 


Jackals 

Jacob 

Jael 

Jaghut 

Jalam 

Japheth 

Jason 
Jephthah’s daughter 
Jeremiel 

Jesus 

Jeush  -*Jaghut 
Jezebel 

Jordan 

Joseph 

Judah -*Yehud 


Kabod -*Glory 
Kaiwan 

Kelti 

Kenan 

Kese? 

Kesil -*Orion 
Khonsu 
Khvarenah 
Kimah  -*Pleiades 
King 

King of terrors 
King of Tyre -*Melqart 


XXXVI 


Kinnaru 

Kiririga 

Kokabim  -*Stars 
Koshar 

Kosharoth 

Kubaba -*Cybele 
Kyrios 


Laban 

Lady -*Adat; Beltu 
Lagamal -*Lagamar 
Lagamar 

Lah 

Lahab -*Flame 
Lahai-roi 

Lahmu 

Lamb 

Lamia -Lilith 
Lamp 

Law -*Nomos: Torah 
Leah 

Lebanon 

Legion 

Lel 

Leviathan 

Libra 

Liers-in-wait 

Lies 

Light 

Lightning 

Lilith 

Lim 

Linos 

Lioness 

Logos 

Lord 

Lordship -*Dominion 
Lyre -Kinnaru 


Ma -*Cybele 

Ma‘at 

Magog 

Makedon 

Mal'ak melis | -*Mediator (T) 
Mal’ak Yahweh  -*Angel of Yahweh 
Malik 

Mammon 

Man -*Anthropos 
Marduk 

Mary 

Mashhit ~-*Destroyer 
Mastemah 

Matter —Hyle 

Mazzaloth -*Constellations 
Mediator (I) 

Mediator (II) 


ENTRIES 


Melchizedek 

Melgart 

Menelaos 

Meni 

Meriri 

Mesites | -* Mediator (II) 
Messenger -*Angel (1) 
Messiah  -*Christ 
Michael 

Midday demon 

Mighty One of Jacob 
Mighty ones -*Gibborim 
Milcom 

Min 

Mire Clay 

Misharu 

Mistress -*Adat; Beltu 
Mithras 

Molech 

Moon 

Moses 

Most High  -*Elyon: Hypsistos 
Mot 

Mother 
Mountains-and-valleys 
Mouth 

Mulissu 


Nabû 

Nahar -River 
Nahash -*Serpent 
Nahhunte  —Lagamar 
Nahor 

Name 

Nanca 

Narcissus 

Naru -*River 
Necessity — Ananke 
Nehushtan 

Neith 

Nephilim 

Nereus 

Nergal 

Nibhaz 

Night 

Nike 

Nile 

Nimrod 

Ninuna - Nimrod: Nisroch 
Nisroch 

Noah 

Noble ones 

Nomos 

Nymph 


Oak 

Ob -*Spirit of thc dead 
Oberim -*Travellers 
Og 

Oil 

Olden Gods 

Olympus 

One 

Ophannim  -*angels 
Orion 

Osiris 

Ouranos -*Heaven; Varuna 


Pahad Laylah  -*Terror of the Night 
Pantokrator -*Almighty 
Paraclete 

Patroklos 

People Am 

Perseus 

Phoebus -*Apollo 

Phoenix 

Pleiades 

Pollux  -*Dioskouroi 

Poseidon 

Power -*Dynamis 

Presbyteroi -*Elders 

Prince 

Prince (NT) -*Archon 

Prince of the army of Yahweh —Prince 
Principalities —Archai 

Pronoia 

Protectors 

Ptah 


Python 


Qatar 

Qedar -*Qatar 
Qedoshim ->Saints 
Qeteb 

Qós 

Queen of Heaven 
Quirinus 


Rabisu 

Rachel 

Rahab 

Rakib-El 

Ram 

Rapha 

Raphael 

Raven 

Re 

Rephaim 

Rephan -*Kaiwan 
Resheph 
Rider-upon-the-clouds 


ENTRIES XXXVII 


Riding Horseman 
Righteousness -*Zedeq 
River 

Rock 

Roma 

Ruler cult 


Sabbath 

Saints 

Saints of the Most High 
Sakkuth 

Samson -*Heracles 
Sanctuary 

Sar -*Prince 
Sarah 

Sasam 

Satan 

Satum  -Kaiwan 
Satyrs 

Saviour 

Sea 

Seirim — -*Satyrs 
Sela Rock 
Selem — *Image 
Seneh  -*Thornbush 
Seraphim 

Serpent 

Serug 

Seth 

Seven -*Apkallu 
Sha 

Shadday 

Shahan 

Shahar 

Shalem 

Shalman 

Shaushka 

Shean -*Shahan 
Sheben 

Shechem  -*Thukamuna 
Sheger 

Shelah 

Shem 

Shemesh 

Sheol 

Shepherd 

Sheqer  -Falsehood 
Shield of Abraham 
Shimige 

Shining one(s) 
Shiqmah -*Sycomore 
Shiqqus  -Abomination 
Shulman 
Shulmanitu 
Shunama 

Shunem -*Shunama 


XXXVIII 


Sid -Sidon 

Sidon 

Silvanus 

Simon Magus 

Sin 

Sin 

Sirion 

Sisera 

Skythes 

Soil 

Son of God 

Sons of (the) God(s) 
Son of Man 
Soothsaying spirit -*Spirit of the dead 
Sophia ~Wisdom 
Soter -*Saviour 
Source 

Spirit -*Holy Spirit 
Spirit of the dead 
Stars 

Stoicheia 

Stone 

Strong Drink 
Sukkoth-benoth 

Sun -*Helios; Re Shemesh 
Sycomore 


Taboo 

Tabor 

Tal -Dew 
Tammuz 

Tannin 

Tartak 

Tehom  -*Tiamat 
Ten Sephirot 
Terah 

Teraphim 
Terebinth 

Terror of the Night 
Thanatos 

Themis 

Theos -*God (II) 
Thessalos 
Thillakhuha 
Thornbush 

Thoth 

Thrones 
Thukamuna 
Tiamat 

Tiberius -*Ruler cult 
Tigris 


ENTRIES 


Tirash 

Titans 

Torah 

Travellers 

Trees ~*Oak, Sycomore, Terebinth, Thombush 
Tyche 

Typhon 


Unclean spirits 
Unknown God 
Uriel 


Vampire 
Vanities 
Varuna 

Vashti 

Vine -*Gepen 
Viper 

Virgin 

Vohu Manah 


Watcher 

Way 

Wild Beasts 
Wind-Gods 
Wine -*Tirash 
Wisdom 
Witness 

Wizard 

World rulers 
Wrath 


Yaaqan  —Ya'üq 
Yahweh 

Yahweh zebaoth 
Yam -*Sea 

Ya'üq 

Yarikh —Moon 
Yehud 

Yidde‘oni -*Wizard 
Yizhar -*Oil 
Yom -Day 


Zamzummim 

Zaphon 

Zedeq 

Zeh-Sinai -*He-of-the-Sinai 
Zeus 

Zion 

Zur -*Rock 


AB -* FATHER 


ABADDON 

I. The noun 'ábaddón is derived from 
the Heb root TZN, which is common Semitic 
(cf. Ug and Aram "bd, AKk abátu) and 
means 'to destroy'. The Hebrew noun has 
the meaning ‘place of destruction’ which 
basically fits all occurrences in the Bible; 
only in the NT is ‘ABaddav (Rev 9:11) 
construed as a proper name. 

JI. Though the religions of the ancient 
Near East know a considerable number of 
deities and demons relating to the nether- 
world, there occurs no divine name of such 
a being which can be derived from the root 
"BD. In the OT 'ábaddón occurs six times in 
Wisdom literature mostly meaning 'place of 
destruction’. Thus in Prov 15:11; 27:20 and 
Job 26:6 we find it in parallelism to §é’6l 
(‘underworld’; ~Sheol), while in Ps 88:12 
*dbaddén occurs in parallelism with qeber 
(‘grave’). When ’abaddén occurs without a 
parallel noun, as in Job 31:12, its reference 
is topographical. It is this locative aspect 
which can also be seen in the writings from 
Qumran (e.g. IQH 3:16.19.32)? partly again 
in parallel with 3&ól. In the Babylonian Tal- 
mud (Fr 19a) it is given as the second of the 
seven names of Gehenna. 

The mythological implications of Abad- 
don come to the fore in Job 28:22: 'ábaddón 
and mawer (‘death’, —Mot) are both re- 
ferred to as personificd beings who can 
speak and hear. This is the biblical starting 
point for speculations about *abaddén as a 
separate entity, as the realm of an -*angel of 
death and the netherworld. We can mention, 
from Apoc. Zeph. 10:3, the -*angel Eremiel 
who resides in the underworld where all the 
souls are locked in; also / Enoch 20:2 is 
comparable to this idea of a personified 
angel of the 'ábaddón. This is also the 


background of the use of ‘ABaddav in Rev 
9:11 as a proper name. After the fifth angel 
has blown his trumpet, the depth of the 
underworld 1s opened and smoke and huge 
locusts come up from it; their king is called 
“in Hebrew Abaddon, and in Greek he is 
called ~Apollyon™. This Greek expression 
is not only derived from the verb axdAA ut, 
but there is also an allusion to the Greek 
god Apollo who is a god of pestilence and 
destruction; Aeschylus already (Agam. 1028. 
1081; cf. Plato, Krat. 404c.405c) connects 
the god's name with this verb. Thus 
‘ABaddav or ‘AnoAAvawv can be seen as a 
demon who brings destruction and whose 
realm is the underworld. 

The explicit use of ?ábaddón for a de- 
monic being is rare, as it is used mainly as 
the name of a place. Maybe two occurrences 
of the word are secondarily open to personi- 
fication: Prov 27:20 tells us that Abaddon 
cannot be satiated; this anthropomorphous 
diction may be a slight hint of Abaddon's 
demonic character. Also Job 26:5-6 is to be 
mentioned once more: In Job’s speech, the 
shades in the underworld tremble before 
God and there is no shelter to cover Abad- 
don. Thus it is perhaps not too speculative 
to assume that Abaddon is not only a place 
of destruction but also a demon of destruc- 
tion. But on the whole Abaddon’s role as a 
demon certainly does not figure prominently 
in the Bible—though the OT is aware of 
such underworldly beings. 

III. Bibliography 
J. JERemias, ‘ABaddav, TWNT 1 (1933) 4; 
A. OEPKE, ‘AnoAAvwv, TWNT 1 (1933) 
396; B. OTZEN, TAN 'ábad. TWAT 1 (1970- 
1973) 20-24. 


M. HUTTER 


ABBA -* FATHER 


ABEL — ABOMINATION 


ABEL ^35 

I. Abel is a novelistic figure in Gen 4. 
His name is etymologically related to hebel 
‘breath; nullity; vapor’ (Vanities). He has 
been related to the personal name é-bil // 
*a-bil in texts from Ebla. Within the para- 
digm that the antediluvian patriarchs were 
demigods or at least heroes, GORDON seems 
to suggest that Abel was a deity in Ebla 
(1988:154). In a later Jewish Hellenistic 
speculation Abel is seen as a judging 
angel. 

II. The texts referred to by Gordon point 
to a person called *Ebil and not to a deity. 
The name é-bil (MEE I 338 s.v. é-bil; MEE 
II 12 r. ii:6; II 7 r. i:6) is not preceded by 
the determinative for a deity. The name 
belongs to a human being, as thc addition 
LU 4ra-sa-ap shows (MEE 1 12 r. ii:6). So 
the antediluvian Abel cannot be interpreted 
as a deity. 

III. In the OT Abel occurs only in Gen 
4:2.4.8-9.25. His name is derived from the 
noun hebel ‘breath’ (SEYBOLD 1974:337; 
Hess 1993) indicating that he is a person 
with a transient character. A connection with 
Akk ibilu and Arab ’ibil ‘came!’ (HALAT 
227) is less probable. 

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Abel is 
seen as one of the ‘heroes of faith’ (Heb 
11:4): “By faith Abel offered unto God a 
more excellent sacrifice than Cain". The 
author of this letter refers to the question 
why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and 
Abel's accepted. This problem is discussed 
in some Hellenistic-Jewish and Rabbinic 
sources too: Josephus, Ant. 1, 53-54 (God 
had more pleasure in animals linked with 
nature than in fruits as the product of cultu- 
re); Philo, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini; Tg. 
Ps.-J. Gen 4:8; T. Sota 4,19 (here Cain is 
listed among the ungodly). The Greek trans- 
lation of Theodotion offers an independent 
interpretation according to which fire came 
down from heaven to consume Abel’s 
sacrifice but not Cain’s. Another passage 
from the Epistle to the Hebrews interprets 
the blood of Abel in christological terms 
(Heb 12:24). 

In a throne vision in the longer recension 


of the Testament of Abraham, Abel is 
depicted as the “sun-like angel, who holds 
the balance” (6 GyyeAos 0 NAtépopdos 6 TOV 
Cuyov xatézwv). As son of the first born in 
history, Abel is sitting as judge in heaven 
and he will judge the entire creation (7. Abr. 
B XIIE1-3; cf. FossuM 1985:276-277; 
MacH 1992:198, who wrongly quotes the 
passage as T.Abr. B 10,8f). In the shorter 
recension of the Testament of Abraham, 
Abel is seen only as an angel (T. Abr. A. 
XI:2). A relation with the angel Hibil known 
as a demiurge in Mandaic sources cannot be 
excluded (FossuM 1985:262-263). 
IV. Bibliography 

J. E. FossuM, The Name of God and the 
Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish 
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin 
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985); 
C. H. Gorpon, Notes on Proper Names in 
the Ebla Tablets, in: Eblaite Personal 
Names and Semitic Name-giving (A. Archi 
ed.; ARES 1; Roma 1988) 153-158; R. S. 
Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of 
Genesis 1-11 (AOAT 234; Neukirchen- 
Vluyn 1993) 27-28.223-225; M. MacH, Enr- 
wicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engel- 
glaubens in vorrabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; 
Tübingen 1992); K. SEvBoLp. 025 hæbæl, 
TWAT 2 (1974) 334-343. 


B. BECKING 


ABOMINATION 1^9 

I. The singular noun 3iggü; 'abomin- 
ation' as a dysphemism mcaning 'god, god- 
dess' appears scven times in the Masoretic 
text of Hebrew Scripture. This term refers 
respectively to (a) -^Milcom, the chief god 
of the Ammonites (1 Kgs 11:5, 7); (b) 
—Chemosh, the chief god of Moab (1 Kgs 
11:5; 23:18); (c) Ashtoreth (—Astarte), the 
chief goddess of the Sidonians (2 Kgs 11:5, 
7); and (d) the abomination of desolation 
(Sigqtis mésomém, Gk PSEAUypAa Epnidcenc, 
Dan 11:31; 12:1), which most modern inter- 
preters identify with the statue of —Zeus 
Olympios which Antiochus IV Epiphanes 
set up in the Temple of the LoRD 
(7*Yahweh) at Jerusalem on December 6th 


ABRAHAM 


in the year 167 scr. It is generally agreed 
that the reading siggtsim méSémém is the 
result of dittography and that the original 
and correct reading should be here also 
Siqqiis méSémém, i.e., ‘abomination (singu- 
lar) of desolation’. 

It is likewise generally agreed that the 
latter designation of Zeus Olympios is a 
play upon -*Baal shamem, ‘Lord of 
heaven’, which is the Phoenician title of 
both Canaanite Hadad and Greek Zeus, 
who were perceived to be the same deity 
under different names just as, mutatis 
mutandis, modern Muslims, Christians and 
Jews perceive Allah, Jehovah, and Adonai 
as different names for the same deity. 

The plural 3igqüsim, ‘abominations’, 
refers to unspecified deities other than the 
LoRD and their respective cult statues in 
Deut 29:16; Jer 7:30;16:18; 32:34; Ezek 
5:11; 7:20; 11:21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23. Only 
in Zech 9:7 and Isa 66:3 is the plural 
Siqqüsgim employed in the sense of šëgāşîm, 
'non-kosher foods'. In Hos 9:10 the term 
means ‘disgusting people’, and it refers to 
the Israclites who through licentious beha- 
viour with the Midianite women were enti- 
ced into worship of Baal of Peor (cf. Num 
25:3-5). In Nah 3:6 the noun šiqggûşîm refers 
to disgusting objects (possibly excrements) 
which God promises to throw at personified 
Nineveh in order to bespatter the city which 
had until now attracted the admiration of all 
the world with her charms. 

Unquestionably, referring to deities and 
their cult objects as Siggiisim, whose pri- 
mary meaning is ‘disgusting objects’, was 
meant to repel Israelites, who might other- 
wise be tempted to worship prohibited de- 
ities. In the same way, Lev 18 asserts that 
various types of sexual relations, which 
some persons might perceive to be alterna- 
tive lifestyles, are so repulsive that they 
make even the personified land of Israel 
vomit. 

H. Bibliography 
R. GALATZER-LEvy & M. I. GRUBER, What 
an Affect Means: A Quasi-Experiment about 
Disgust, The Annual of Psychoanalysis 20 
(1992) 69-92; L. F. HARTMAN & A. A. 


DiLELLA, Daniel (AB 23; Garden City 
1978); J. MitGrom, Two Priestly Terms: 
Seqes and tamé’, Tarbiz 60 (1991) 423-428. 


M. I. GRUBER 


ABRAHAM OTIN 

I}. The ‘original’ name of the patriarch 
'abrám belongs to the common stock of 
West Semitic names known since the begin- 
ning of the second millennium BCE. It is a 
contracted form of ’dbirdm (HALAT 9; DE 
Vaux 1968:11; 1 Kgs 16:32; Num 16:1; 
26:9; Ps 106:17), written abrm in Ugarit 
(KTU 4.352:2,4 = 'A-bi-ra-mu/i; PRU 3,20; 
5,85:10; 107:8, cf. also Mari, H. B. Hurr- 
MON, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari 
Texts [Baltimore 1965] 5), 'brm in Elephan- 
tine (E. SACHAU, Aramidische Papyrus und 
Ostraka aus einer Militür-Kolonie zu Ele- 
phantine [Leipzig 1911] no. 75/1 1L.8). It 
occurs perhaps also in the toponym p? hqr 
Jbrm ‘the fortress of Abram’ mentioned in 
the Sheshong-list (J. SimoNs, Handbook of 
Egyptian Topographical Lists [Leiden 1973] 
XXXIV:71-72; MEYER 1906:266; Y. AHA- 
RONI, The Land of the Bible {London 19792] 
328; pace M. NorH, Die Schoschenkliste, 
ZDPV 61 [1938] 291-292 - Awfsütze zur 
biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde 2 
[ed. H. W. Wolff; Neukirchen Vluyn 1971] 
83-84), but identification with biblical Abra- 
ham remains extremely uncertain. "Abraham 
is an extended form of ’abram. The exten- 
sion is rather due to reverence and distinc- 
tion than dialectic variance. In historical 
times, tradition—confirmed by folkloristic 
etymology (Gen 17:5; Neh 9:7}—knew the 
patriach only by his name ’abrahdm (Mic 
7:20; Ps 47:10 etc.). 

II. At one time the patriarchs were inter- 
preted as local Canaanite deities (LUTHER 
1901; MEYER 1906, cf. WEIDMANN 1968: 
89-94) or in terms of astral myth (GoLD- 
ZIHER 1876:109-110, 122, 182-183; JERE- 
MIAS 1906), particularly Abraham, since he 
was associated with centres of the Meso- 
potamian -*moon cult (Ur and -*Haran). 
Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess 
and Abraham's father -Terah with the 


ABRAHAM 


moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradi- 
tion, there are allusions to the ancient cults 
of Abraham’s place of origin (Josh 24:2), 
mythological interpretation of the Abraham- 
cycle plays no role in recent discussion. 
Still, the religio-historical role of father 
Abraham as the most venerated ancestor and 
saint of Judaism, Christianity and Islam 
(Matt 3:9; 8:6, Luke 16:22-23; John 8:39 
etc.; Str-B I 116-121; III 186-201; JEREMIAS 
1958; Busse 1988:81-92) and his mythic 
image as —Rock, i.e. begetter, (Isa 51:1) is 
of interest. This latter veneration of 'Father 
Abraham’ may derive from an carly 
Israelite, viz. Canaanite ancestral cult of 
Abraham at Machpelah (~Cybele) (WEID- 
MANN 1968: 27-30; Loretz 1978:192). 
Recent scholarship has become increas- 
ingly sceptical about the historicity of 
Abraham and the patriarchal era (THOMPs- 
ON 1974; VaN Seters 1975; Bium 
1984:491-506; KéckerT 1988:300-323). 
Tracing the origins of Abraham within the 
complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is 
extremely difficult. Pentateuchal traditions 
picture him as the founder of a number of 
cult-places (Shechem -*Thukamuna, Gen 
12:6-7; Bethel, Gen 12:8; 13:3-4; Mamre, 
Gen 13:18; Beersheba, Gen 21:23; Moriah / 
Jerusalem?, Gen 22:2; 1 Chron 3:1); he 
came cither from Ur or from Haran in Mes- 
opotamia (Gen 11:27-32; 15:7); his pastoral 
and sedentary life is mainly concentrated in 
the environment of the Negev (Beersheba, 
E) and/or Hebron (Mamre, JP) and he was 
buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23:1- 
20, JP; 25:1-7, P)  Traditio-historical 
research basically agrees that his connec- 
tions with Haran, Shechem and Bethel are 
of a secondary character and originated 
when tradition identified Abraham as the 
father of Isaac and ancestor of the Northern 
tribes (~Jacob; NoTH 1948: 112-127). The 
traditions of Mamre and the ancestral tomb 
of Machpelah near Hebron possess, how- 
ever, a certain credibility. The traditions 
about Abraham, the Hebrew, who lived near 
the —Terebinths of the Amorite Mamre 
(Gen 14:13 with parallel accounts in Gen 
13:18; 14:18; 18:1; 23:1.19) suggest that the 
cult of Abraham was originally at home 


around Hebron (ALT, KS 1, 54-55: JEPSEN 
1953-54:144, 149). 

III. Pre-Judaean -traditions about Abra- 
ham were kept and fostered by the clan of 
Caleb, the Kenizite, who settled and lived at 
Hebron (Josh 14:6.13-15; 15:13-19 = Judg 
1:10-15.20) before they merged with the 
Judaean confederation. At the sanctuary in 
Mamre-Hebron, Abraham was ‘a father of 
many nations’ as early as the emergence of 
the monarchy. At the end of the second mil- 
lennium BCE at least two tribal federations, 
the Judaean Israelites and the [shmaelites 
claimed Abraham as one of their ancestors. 
It is not until the end of the monarchic 
period, however, that in Judacan-Israelite 
tradition ‘our father" Abraham emerges out 
of the shadow of Jacob (Isa 29:23; Mic 
7:20), probably because of his more ‘ecu- 
menical' character (Jer 33:26; Ezek 33:24; 
Isa 41:8; 51:2; 63:16; VAN DER MERWE 
1956:90-101, 121-124). Pleas based on the 
election of Abraham as friend and servant of 
God (resp. Isa 41:8; 2 Chr 20:7; Jas 2:23; cf. 
Gen 26:24; Exod 32:13; Ps 105:42; also 
Koranic al-halîl, Surah 4:125) and his 
fathership of Israel may reflect a growing 
reverence for him as an ancestral saint and 
intercessor (Gen 18:22-33; 20:17; 23:6 [?]; 
cf. Isa 63:15-16; Str-B I 116-121). Abra- 
ham's image as a rock-begetter parallel to 
Sarah as a childbearing rock-cleft (Isa 51:1) 
may even refer to the ancient cult-legend of 
Machpelah (VAN UCHELEN 1968: pace 
FaBry, TWAT 4 1982-84:982) If so, it 
would be the oldest reference to Machpelah 
outside the Pentateuch. From Gen 23:1-20; 
25:7-11 (P) it might be inferred that at the 
least in early post-exilic times the motif of 
the patriarchal tomb had become established 
in Israclite-Ishmaelite tradition. In this 
period Hebron was no Judaean territory 
(Neh 11:25) but part of the hyparchy 
Idumea (I Mace 6:65; ALT, KS 2, 327-329; 
AHARONI 1979:416). Already at this stage 
the existence of Jewish and Idumaean 
pilgrimages seems to be implied and Jub. 
22:3-4 and Josephus (Bell. IV 532) may 
confirm this. The present edifice which 
houses the epitaphs of the patriarchs and 
their wives, the Haram el-Khalil, is a work 


ADAM 


of Herodian architecture (JEREMtAS 1956; 
Weirrert, BRL?, 145 [& lit]). It was 
presumably built over a more modest shrine, 
called byt ^brhin (Heb Jub. 22:24; 23:6; DJD 
Ill 269; lat baris Abraham) also known as 
byt hbrk ‘house of the Blessed One’ (3015 
XI11,8; Mur 43:2; Lipisski 1974:50-51). This 
‘house of Abraham/the Blessed One’ is most 
probably not identical with the cult-place of 
Mamre, which at present is located at Ramat 
al-Khalil, 3 km. north of Hebron (Bell. IV 
533; IQapGen XXT,19). Though Mamre is 
nowhere mentioned explicitly outside Gen- 
esis, it was an ancient sanctuary and a centre 
of pilgrimage (2 Sam 2:4; 5:3). According 
to Josephus the ancient terebinth, called 
Ogyges was still shown there (Bell. IV 533; 
Ant. | 186). The place was destroyed by 
Hadrian after the Bar Kochba revolt and 
turned into a marketplace. Constantine built 
a basilica inside the Herodian wall (So- 
zomenus, Hist. Eccl. 1l 4; JEREMIAS 1958; 
WriPPERT, BRL?, 145; MAGEN 1991). The 
still impressive remains of both places and 
the unbroken tradition testify to Abraham's 
religious significance as the father of all 
who are of the faith of Abraham (Rom 
4:16). and to his ancestral cult, in the Haram 
el-Khalil, still observed by Jews, Christians 
and Muslims (JEREMIAS 1958). 
IV. Bibliography 

E. BruM, Die Komposition der Váter- 
geschichte (WMANT 57; Stuttgart. 1984); 
H. Busse, Die theologischen Beziehungen 
des Islams zu Judentum und Christentum 
(Grundzüge 72; Darmstadt 1988); I. GoLp- 
ZINER, Der Mythos bei den Hebrdern und 
seine geschichtliche Entwicklung (Leipzig 
1876: repr. 1987); A. JEPSEN, Zur Über- 
lieferungsgeschichte der Vitergestalten, WZ- 
Leipzig 2/3 (1953-54) 267-281 = FS ALT 
(Leipzig 1953-54) 139-155; A. JEREMIAS, 
Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten 
Orients (Leipzig 1906); J. JEREMIAS, Hei- 
ligengräber in Jesu Umwelt (Göttingen 
1958) 90-100; M. KÖCKERT, Vätergott und 
Váterverheissungen (FRLANT 142; Göt- 
tingen 1988); E. Lipinski, ‘Anaq-Kiryat 
'Arba-Hébron et ses sanctuaires tribaux, 
VT 24 (1974) 41-55; O. Loretz, Vom 
kanaanüischen Totenkult zur jüdischen 


Patriarchen- und Elternehrung, Jahrbuch für 
Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 3 
(1978) 149-203; B. LurHEn, Die israeli- 
tischen Stimme, ZAW 21 (1901) 1-76; Y. 
MAGEN, Elonci Mamre. A Herodian Cult 
Site, Qadimoniot 24 (1991) 46-55 [Hebr]; E. 
MEYER, Die lsraeliten und ihre Nach- 
barstümrmine (Halle 1906); B. J. VAN DER 
MERWE, Pentateuchtradisies in die Pre- 
diking van Deuterojesaja (Groningen 1956); 
T. L. THoMPSON, 7he Historicity of the 
Patriarchal Narratives (Berlin 1974); N. A. 
VAN UCHELEN, Abraham als Felsen (Jes 
51,1), ZAW 80 (1968) 183-191; J. VAN 
Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition 
(New Haven and London 1975); R. DE 
Vaux, Die Patriarchenzühlungen und die 
Geschichte (Stuttgart 1968); DE Vaux, His- 
toire ancienne d'Israel. Des origines à 
l'installation en. Canaan (Paris 1971); H. 
WEIDMANN, Die Patriarchen und ihre Re- 
ligion im Licht der Forschung seit Julius 
Wellhausen (FRLANT 94; Gottingen 1968); 
M. Wespprert, Abraham der Hebrier? 
Bemerkungen zu W. F. Albrights Deutung 
der Viiter Israels, Bib 52 (1971) 407-432; C. 
WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36 (BKAT 1⁄2; 
Neukirchen 1981). 


M. DIJKSTRA 


ADAM 

I. in the Bible itself there are no traces 
of traditions that Adam was ever regarded as 
a divine or angelic being. For non-biblical 
ANE material possibly relevant to Adam 
veneration the reader is referred to the 
lemma ->Soil. Here only post-biblical mate- 
rial pertinent to the motif of Adam’s divine 
or angelic status is dealt with. 

II. Some passages in early rabbinic lite- 
rature testify to the existence of ‘heretics’ 
(minim) that held that Adam had acted as 
God’s associate in creation or as his pleni- 
potentiary (c.g., b.Sanh. 38a: “Our rabbis 
taught: Adam was created [last of all beings] 
on the eve of Sabbath. Why so? Lest the 
minim should say: The Holy One, blessed be 
He, had a partner [sc. Adam] in His work of 
creation”). Gnostic sources seem to confirm 
this when they speak of Adamas through 


ADAT 


whom everything came into being (FossuM 
1985:267). In other carly Christian sources 
the idea of Adam having been God's vicere- 
gent crops up occasionally, especially in the 
so-called Adam literature (sec, e.g. the 
Cave of the Treasure; further STONE 1992). 
Philo’s distinction between the heavenly 
Man of Gen 1:27 and the earthly man of 
Gen 2:7 may have been one of the tributa- 
ries to the development of this motif (Opif. 
mundi 134 et al). In. 2 Enoch 30:11-12 
(long recension) God says: “On the earth | 
assigned him [Adam] to be a second angel, 
honoured and great and glorious. | assigned 
him to be a king, to reign on the earth and 
to have my wisdom. There was nothing 
comparable to him on the earth, not even 
among my creatures that exist [the angels]." 
But the Testament of Abraham ch. 8 (rec. B) 
goes a step further when identifying Adam 
with a Kavod-like (-*Glory) Man in heaven, 
“sitting upon a throne of great glory” at the 
gates of Paradise, encircled by a multitude 
of angels and looking at the many souls 
being led to destruction and the few souls 
being led to life. “Adam is enthroned in 
heaven as the Glory at the end of time" 
(Fossum 1985:276). The description of 
Adam as a “wondrous man,” “adorned in 
such glory,” with a “terrifying apperance, 
like that of the Lord” (Test. Abr. 11, rec. A) 
clearly recalls Ezekiel’s vision in ch. 1. It 
would seem that in certain circles with mys- 
tical inclinations God’s Glory, the Heavenly 
Man, and Adam merged into one angelic 
figure. On the development of this idea in 
later Kabbalistic circles see SCHOLEM 1974 
(Reg., s.v.). The implication that all this 
may have for the study of New Testament 
christology is a matter of debate. 
III. Bibliography 

J. E. FossuM, The Name of God and the 
Angel of the Lord. Samaritan and Jewish 
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin 
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985) 
266-291; *Pu. B. MuNoa, Four Powers in 
Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in 
the Testament of Abraham (Sheffield 1998), 
esp. 82-112; A. F. SEGAL, Two Powers in 
Heaven (SJLA 25; Leiden 1977); G. ScHo- 


LEM, Kabbalah (Jerusalem 1974); M. E. 
STONE, A History of the Literature of Adam 
and Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta 1992). 


P. W. VAN DER Horst 


ADAT MTIR 

I. The Ugaritic male title adn (—>Lord) 
for god and men has a female counterpart: 
adt (< *adattu < *adāntu ). EISSFELDT 
(1939) proposed to read in the lament Jer 
22:18 wéhdy ’ddat, ‘oh, Mistress’, implying 
that a female deity is invoked. 

II. At Ugarit, adt occurs as the female 
counterpart to adn. adt is not only used to 
indicate the Ugaritic queen-mother, but also 
the mother-goddess as can be inferred from 
names like bn adty = DUMU a-da-ta-ya 
(PRU VI, 83 iv:11); fA-da-ti-ya (PRU III, 
p.114:29); 'bdadt - "R-a-da-te (F. GRÖN- 
DAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte aus 
Ugarit [StP 1; Roma 1967] 45.90; KTU 
3.3:12; PRU VI, 79:19, 185:2*); hyadt (PRU 
I, 47:22); fSüm-a-da-te (PRU VI, 107:6); 
[f)Um-mi-a-da-te (PRU V, 107:7). The title 
*dt, ‘mistress’, is attested in Phoenicia for 
Ba‘alat of Byblos (KA/ 6:2; 7:4) and for 
—Astarte (KA/ 29:2) |n a proto-sinaitic 
inscription from Serabit cl-Khadim -*Baalat 
= -»Hathor) is given this epitheton (CPSI 
No. 37). It also occurs in Palmyra (J. 
CANTINEAU, Syria 17 [1936] 334-335; 
NorH 1937:345) Finally, the Egyptian- 
Asiatic female personal name 'dwnw (Papy- 
rus Brooklyn 35.1446 vs 15a; SCHNEIDER 
1987:264) must be noted. In Aramaic 
inscriptions the title mr(’)t/mdrdt (= -*Atar- 
gatis?) is used next to mara’, ‘lord’, more 
than once (DISO 166-167; KAI 242). 

III. It is not settled whether or not the 
female title ‘mistress’ for the divine occurs 
in the Old Testament. EISSFELDT (1938:489; 
cf. HALAT 12. 231) proposed to read in the 
lament Jer 22:18 wéhdy ’adat, ‘oh, Mis- 
tress’, (parallel to ?G/iót in the preceding 
colon), though the masoretic text, wéhdy 
hódó, ‘oh, his majesty’, is rather clear (but 
sce W. L. HoiLaDpav, Jeremiah 1 [Phil- 
adelphia 1986] 592, 597). The only indica- 
tion that the title was known in an Israelite 


ADDIRIM — 


context is found in a Judaean seal belonging 
to a woman: 'dr ^it pihr (TiGay 1986:65). 
Ugaritic and Palmyrene parallels suggest her 
name (and perhaps the woman) to be of 
foreign origin. If she was Israelite, her name 
reflects either the existence of the cult of a 
female deity like -Asherah in Judah or it 
was used despite its original non-Israelite 
character like e.g. Aramaic Martha who is 
attested in Jewish contexts (DISO 166; 
TiGay 1986:71). 
IV. Bibliography 

O. EissrELDT, Neue Belege für MUS “Her- 
rin" OLZ 40 (1947) 345-346; M. NorH, 
Zum phGnizischen N78, OLZ 31 (1938) 553- 
558; T. SCHNEIDER, Die semitischen und 
ügyptischen Namen der syrischen Sklaven 
des Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 Verso, UF 
19 (1987) 255-282; J. H. TiGAY, You Shall 
Have No Other Gods (HSS 31; Atlanta 
1986). 


M. DIKSTRA 


ADDIRIM -* NOBLE ONES 
ADON > LORD 
ADONAY -* LORD; YAHWEH 


ADONIS “Adavis 

I. Adonis (originally ‘Lord’, see 
Hesychius s.v.) is a hero of classical mythol- 
ogy, beloved by -*Aphrodite and Persepho- 
ne. He has been identified with a Phoenician 
god in Byblos who is referred to as Spa.mu 
in the Amama letters. The divine name 
Adonis occurs in Vulg Version of Ezek 8:14 
instead of VL and LXX Thammuz. As 
hemdat násim, ‘Darling of women’, Adonis 
occurs possibly in Dan 11:37. References to 
his cult are perhaps also to be found in some 
chapters of Isaiah. 

IIl. According to classical tradition (e.g. 
Anton. Liber. 34; Apollod. III 14, 3-4; Ovid, 
Metam. X 298-739; Hygin. Fab. 58) 
Adonis was born from an incestuous union 
between the heroine Myrrha, who had in- 
curred the displeasure of Aphrodite, and her 
own father Kinyras (or Theias), king of 


ADONIS 


Cyprus (or of Assyria/Syria). He divides his 
time between the realm of the living and the 
underworld, Central themes in the myths 
about Adonis are Aphrodite’s love for him, 
and his premature and shameful death; he 
was killed by a wild boar while hunting. His 
love and death are the subject of the Adonia 
festivals celebrated in classical Athens, in 
Ptolemaic Alexandria and in the Roman 
world. In addition to a ritual mourning, there 
were other rites varying with each locality 
and period. The Athenian celebrations (Sth- 
4th century BCE) were a private festival; 
they were characterized by the high numbers 
of women participating, their atmosphere of 
frolic and licentiousness, and their ritual 
mourning. One of the chief items on the 
agenda was the preparation of the ‘Adonis 
gardens’, i.c. small carthenware pots in 
which seeds of cereals and vegetables had 
been planted; these began to sprout within a 
week, and were then left on the roofs under 
the summer sun. The miniature ‘gardens’, 
with seeds blooming in the dog-days and 
wilting as soon as they sprouted, were 
regarded as a symbol of an unfruitful agri- 
culture; they were thought to represent the 
Opposite of the normal cycle of seasons 
(e.g., Plato, Phaedrus 276 B; Simplicius, in 
Phys. VII 4). Likewise Adonis, beautiful and 
young but inefficient as a hunter, was 
deemed a paragon of anti-heroic behaviour. 
A young lover of deities who reigned over 
Opposite realms, Aphrodite over the earth 
and Persephone over the underworld, Ado- 
nis was in many ways thc opposite of the 
positive sides of matrimony and manliness. 
The private Athenian worship of Adonis by 
concubines and prostitutes contrasts with the 
public worship of --Demeter by wives and 
mothers. On account of the intrusion of such 
idiosyncratic values, the cult of the Greek 
Adonis marks a crisis in the city ideology. It 
is to be viewed as such rather than as a cos- 
mic drama involving the death of a god 
(DETIENNE 1989). 

A 4th century BCE inscription from 
Athens (IG II? 1261) allows Cypriots in the 
city to celebrate the Adonis festival ‘accord- 
ing to the customs of their homeland’ — 


ADONIS 


which shows that the rites varied locally. 
According to the account of Cyril of 
Alexandria (in Isa, 18:1-2; 4th-Sth century 
CE), the Adonis festival was a show per- 
formed in the sanctuaries by a chorus and 
by singers commemorating Aphrodite’s 
journey to the nether world in search of her 
lover. According to Theocritus, however 
(Idyll. 15; 4th-3rd century BCE), the Alexan- 
drinian Adonis festival was celebrated in the 
royal palace. The first day the participants 
celebrated the union between the two lovers, 
represented in the course of a banquet under 
a kiosk of dill stems and surrounded by 
fruits, delightful gardens, pots of perfumes 
and a big variety of cakes. On the second 
day the epithalamium gave way to a lament 
as the worshippers gathered for a funeral 
procession to carry the image of Adonis to 
the seashore. The Adonis celebrations at 
Byblos, on the Phoenician coast, described 
in pseudo-Lucian’s De Syria Dea 6-9 (2nd 
century CE) were performed in the great 
temple of Aphrodite (Astarte). Legend has 
it that the beginning of the rites was sig- 
nalled by the arrival of a message sent by 
the women of Alexandria and carried by the 
waves to the harbour of the Poenician town, 
to the effect that Aphrodite had found 
Adonis. Occurring at about the same time of 
year, the reddening of the Adonis river 
which sprung from Mt. -*Lebanon, was 
interpreted as a token of Adonis’ death (De 
Syria Dea 6-7; cf. Cyril, in Isa. 18:1-2.). 
The festival consisted of a period of general 
mouming, followed by the joyful proclama- 
tion that ‘Adonis continues to live’ beyond 
death. There is no reference to ‘Adonis gar- 
dens’. The hero received sacrifices ‘as if he 
were dead’, women offered up some of their 
hair or engaged in sacral prostitution, and 
the celebrations ended on a note of cheerful- 
ness. 

According to local exegesis (quoted by 
the author of De Syria Dea, cit.), the Adonis 
of Byblos was a model of the Egyptian 
—Osiris, ie. a great dying god of cosmic 
significance. Moreover, since Strabo (XVI 
2,18) attests that Byblos was dedicated to 
Adonis he must indeed have been a god of 
high rank. It is probable that the cult of 


Adonis in Byblos continued the worship of a 
Phoenician -*'Baal', conceived as a dying 
and rising god. This god was not merely a 
spring deity or a vegetation spirit, as Frazer 
believed, but an important city god compar- 
able to -*Melqart in Tyre and -*Eshmun in 
Sidon. Honoured as king of his city, and 
heir of the ancient Syrian cult of royal an- 
cestors, he was worshipped by the periodical 
celebration of his death and access to divine 
life. In fact, the classical tradition about the 
hero Adonis may well go back, ultimately, 
to a Syro-Palestinian model. The latter was 
often designated by a title (Baal, Adon) 
instead of a proper name. Finally, we must 
remember that in the 2nd century CE a 
temple was built for Adonis in Dura Euro- 
pos, on the ~*Euphrates, where he was wor- 
shipped, perhaps together with the goddess 
~Atargatis (RIBICHINI 1981:166-167). 

III. In the Vulgate version of Ezek 8:14 
the name of Adonis is used to render Heb 
Tammfiz and Gk Oappovt (->Tammuz), for 
whom women were weeping in the temple 
of Jerusalem. It is possible that the reference 
is indeed to the Mesopotamian Tammuz 
whose cult was accepted by exiled Judacans 
(EISSFELDT 1970:21; DELCOR 1978:378). 
The Alexandrian translators of LXX did not 
bother to identify the god with Adonis, 
whose name and cult must have been known 
in Egypt, but are satisfied to transcribe Tam- 
muz’s name from Hebrew to Greck. Only in 
the 3rd century CE is the identification of 
Greek Adonis with the Hebrew and Syriac 
Tammuz explicitly made (see Origen, Sel. in 
Ezek 8:13-14). The cult of the Mesopotam- 
ian god was considered to resemble that of 
Canaanaite Baal/Adon (RIBICHINI 1981:181- 
192; Loretz, in Adonis. Relazioni ..., 32). 
The similarity was also noted by other exe- 
getes (Jerome, in Ezek. 8:14 and Ep. 58:3 
[about mourning nites for Tammuz/Adonis 
in Bethlehem]; Cyril of Alex., in Isa. 18:1-2 
and in Hos. 4:15; Theodoret, in Ezek. 8:14; 
Procopius Gaz., in Isa 18:1-7; Chronicon 
Paschale 130 [PG 92, 329]; see also W. 
BAuDISSIN, Adonis und Eshmun [Leipzig 
1911], 94-97, 352-54). There was some con- 
fusion between the Greek Adonis and the 
oriental Tammuz, also in later Syriac 


ADRAMMELECH 


sources (see esp. Isaac Antioch., XXV 125- 
126; Theodore Bar Koni, Lib. schol. I fed. 
Scher; Paris 1910] 204-205, 312-31; Melit., 
Or. ad Anton. Caes., 5 ; Ishodad of Merv, 
Bar Bahlul, Bar Hebraeus, etc.). 

Some commentators have taken the 
mention of the “one desired by women” in 
Dan 11:37 (combated by Antiochus Epi- 
phanes) as an allusion to the cult of Adonis, 
‘thrice-beloved’, according to Theocritus 
(XV 86) and Hippolytus (Ref. haer. 5:9). 
Yet there is not the slightest evidence in the 
historical records that Antiochus ever op- 
posed the cult of Adonis. The expression 
hemdat násim could mean simply ‘the love 
of women’ or, better, ‘the desire of women’; 
then perhaps it merely points to the cruelty 
Antiochus showed toward all women he was 
sexually involved with. 

Echoes of an Adonis ritual have also 
been found in the oracle against Moab in Isa 
15 (BONNET 1987): some scholars believe 
that Isa 17:10-11 denounces the tending of 
miniature gardens for Adonis; the Hebrew 
expression — nit'é na‘dmdnim (‘pleasant 
plants’) could be understood as ‘plants for 
the Pleasant One’, the ‘Pleasant One’ being 
Adonis. In a similar way Isa 1:29-30; 65:3 
and 66:17 have been said to contain 
references to sacrifices and other rites ‘in the 
gardens’ for Adonis (E1ssFELDT 1970:19- 
20; DELCOR 1978). These interpretations are 
based on the hypothesis that the Adonis gar- 
dens, well-known in the Graeco-Roman 
world, continued an oriental (esp. Syro- 
Palestinian) tradition (cf. the Egyptian ‘beds 
of Osiris’, or the Syro-Palestinian cultic 
practices in the gardens). This would mean 
that gardens were regarded as suitable 
places for ritual mournings for Baal, sym- 
bolizing fertility and revival (see XELLA, in 
Adonis. Relazioni..., 110-111, for the anal- 
ogies between the Greek and biblical pol- 
emics about this cult). 

IV. In the 3rd century cE, Origen (Sel. in 
Ezek. 8:14) sums up the exegesis of Adonis 
that was current in his days (see DE VAUX 
1971): "The god whom the Greeks called 
Adonis is called Tammuz by the Jews and 
the Syrians, as they say. It seems that cer- 
tain sacred ceremonies are practised each 


year; first, they weep for him as if he had 
ceased to live; then they rejoice for him as if 
he had risen from the dead. But those who 
claim to be specialists in the interpretation 
of Greek mythology and so-called mythical 
theology affirm that Adonis symbolizes the 
fruits of the canh: men weep when they sow 
the seeds, but the seeds grow and, by their 
growth, give joy to those who work the 
land”. In fact, a ‘resurrection’ of Adonis, in 
the cults celebrated in the Near East, is clear- 
ly testified to not only by Origen, but also 
by Procopius, Cyril and Jerome. In several 
other literary sources, moreover, Adonis is 
said to be a symbol of the ripe and cut grain 
and contrasts with Attis as a symbol of 
spring flowers (Porphyry, Imag. 7 in Eus., 
P. E. 11 11,12;13,14; Ammianus Marc. XIX 
1,11; XXII 9,15). Note, finally, that the syn- 
cretism with other heroic or divine figures, 
by Greek and Latin authors, includes the 
identification of Adonis with Attis, Osiris, 
Pygmaion, —Dionysos, etc.; he is also 
termed Gingras, Aoios, Gauas, Kirris, Itaios, 
Pherekles, and lends his name to a river 
(Nahr Ibrahim), a kind of flower (anemone), 
fish, bird, song, and a metric verse. 
V. Bibliography 

*Adonis. Relazioni del Colloquio in Roma 
(22-23 maggio 1981) (ed. S. Ribichini; 
Roma 1984); W. ATALLAH, Adonis dans la 
littérature et l'art grecs (Paris 1966); G. J. 
Baupv, Adonisgürten. Studien zur antiken 
Samensymbolik (Beitráge zur klassischen 
Philologie 176; Frankfurt 1986); P.L. vAN 
BERG, Corpus cultus Deae Syriae, 2 vols. 
(Leiden 1972); C. BoNNET, Echos d'un ri- 
tuel de type adonidien dans l'oracle contre 
Moab d'Isaie (/safe, 15), SEL 4 (1987) 101- 
119; J. N. BREMMER, Onder de parfum, in 
de sla, tussen de vrouwen: Adonis en de 
Adonia, Hermeneus 59 (1987) 181-187; M. 
DErcon, Le probléme des jardins d'Adonis 
dans Isaïe 17,9-11 à la lumière de la civili- 
sation syro-phénicienne, Syria 55 (1978) 
371-394; *M. DETIENNE, Les jardins d’Ado- 
nis, 2nd ed. (Paris 1989); R. DE Vaux, The 
Bible and the Ancient Near East (Garden 
City, NY, 1971) 210-237; *O. EiSSFELDT, 
Adonis und Adonaj (Berlin 1970); O. 
LonETZ, Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Ado- 


ADRAMMELECH 





nis und Adonaj, UF 12 (1980) 287-292; G. 
PICCALUGA, Adonis, i cacciatori falliti e 
l'avvento dell'agricoltura, J mito greco (ed. 
B. Gentili & G. Paione; Roma 1977) 33-48; 
S. RiBiCHINI, Adonis. Aspetti ‘orientali’ di 
un mito greco (StSem 55; Roma 1981); N. 
ROBERTSON, The Ritual Background of the 
Dying God in Cyprus and Syro-Palestine, 
HTR 75 (1982) 313-359; B. Soyez, Byblos 
et la féte des Adonies (Leiden 1977); B. 
SovEZ, Adonis, LIMC 1, 222-229; R. Tur- 
CAN, Les cultes orientaux dans le monde 
romain (Paris 1989) 142-146; P. WELTEN, 
Bethlehem und die Klage um Adonis, ZDPV 
99 (1983) 189-203; E. WiLL, Adonis chez 
les Grecs avant Alexandre, Transeuphraténe 
12 (1996) 65-72. 


S. RIBICHINI 


ADRAMMELECH 922778 

I. Adrammelech is a god worshipped 
by the people of Sepharvaim whom the 
Assyrians settled in Samaria, coupled with 
->Anammelech, 2 Kgs 17:31. 

II. No attempt to identify Sepharvaim or 
its deities has yet commanded general 
acceptance. An interesting proposal has been 
produced by Zapok (1976). Building on a 
study by Driver (1958) he argued that the 
place was Assyrian Saparré, Babylonian 
Sipirani, from a putative Siprayn, situated in 
Chaldaca, south of Nippur. Its inhabitants 
could have revered gods with West Semitic 
names. Yet a location in Syria also deserves 
serious consideration, in view of the fact 
that Sepharvaim is mentioned after Hamath 
and Arpad in both 2 Kgs 18:34 and 19:13 
(Day 1989:46). 

Since P. JENSEN proposed the minor 
emendation from ’dr to ’dd (ZA 13 [1898] 
333 n.1), many scholars have accepted 
Adadmelech as a form of Hadad-melech, 
‘Hadad is king’, encouraged by the read- 
ing of Adad-milki in cunciform sources (so 
J. A. Montcomery & H. S. GEHMAN, 
Kings (Edinburgh 1951] 476; Driver 1958; 
M. CocAN & H. Tapmor, // Kings [New 
York 1988] 212). Now the support has 
disappeared since O. PEDERSEN has shown 
that the signs read Adad-milki are simply to 


be read Dada or Dadda, caritative forms of 
Adad (OrSu 33-35 [1984-1986} 313-316). 
Moreover, the divine name would appear in 
West Semitic as Hadad, Add. If the Sephar- 
vites were of Aramean or Phoenician origin, 
it is very unlikely that the name of their god 
would have lost its initial A, unless the 
Hebrew authors of Kings copied the infor- 
mation from a cuneiform text in Babylonian, 
which would not express it. 

The Hebrew Text’s reading is a perfectly 
acceptable West Semitic form, best recon- 
structed as ’addir-melek ‘the glorious one is 
king’. The adjective occurs in Ugaritic and 
in Phoenician. It is a title of -^Baal in a 6th 
century BCE inscription from Byblos (KA/ 9 
B5). On fourth century coins of Byblos a 
local king is named ’drmlk (PECKHAM 
1968:47-50). However, the root is absent 
from Aramaic, indicating a Canaanite or 
Phoenician origin for this deity. The move- 
ment of peoples and their cults by natural 
processes of migration and trade, as well as 
Assyrian deportations, could have brought a 
group of worshippers to Babylonia, only for 
their descendants to be transplanted to 
Samaria (see in general B. ODED, Mass 
Deportations and Deportees in the Neo- 
Assyrian Empire [Wiesbaden 1979)). 

IH. The Sepharvites honoured Adram- 
melech and his companion Anammelech by 
burning their children (2 Kgs 17:31). The 
expression §drap (ba’é5), ‘to burn (in/with 
fire)’, has been interpreted as reflecting the 
deuteronomistic polemics against foreign 
deities (e.g. WEINFELD 1972). This view, 
however, has been seriously challenged (e.g. 
by Kaiser 1976). Both Adrammelech and 
Anammelech may be seen as aspects of 
Molech whose worship involved similar 
action. So long as no information about 
these gods or their home is available from 
other ancient Near Eastern sources, it is 
impossible to clarify the biblical references 
further. 

The deity Adrammelech should not be 
confused with the character Adrammelech, 
the murderer of Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:37; 
Isa 37:38; -*Mulissu). 

IV. Bibliography 
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria. An His- 


10 


AENEAS 


torical and Archaeological Study (SHANE 
2: Leiden 1992) 99-102; J. Dav. Molech: A 
God of Human Sacifice in the Old Testament 
(Cambridge 1989) 41-46; G. R. Driver, 
Geographical Problems, Er/sr 5 (1958) 16- 
20; O. Kaiser, Der Erstgeborene deiner 
Söhne sollst du mir geben, Denkender 
Glaube (FS C. H. Ratschow; ed. O. Kaiser; 
Berlin/New York 1976) 24-48; B. PECK- 
HAM, The Development of the Late Phoeni- 
cian Scripts (HSS 20; Cambridge. Mass. 
1968); M. WEINFELD, The Worship of 
Molech and the Qucen of Heaven and its 
Background, UF 4 (1972) 133-154; R. 
ZADOK, Geographical and Onomastic Notes., 
JANES 8 (1976) 114-126. 


A. R. MILLARD 


AENEAS AivéagAiveiag 

I. Aeneas, already a prominent Trojan 
hero in Homer's Iliad, is best known to us 
as the central figure of Virgil's Aeneid, 
whose task it is to create the Roman identity 
and destiny. His name occurs as that of the 
paralysed man cured by Peter at Acts 9:33- 
34. The name appears to be Greek, based on 
the root for ‘praise’ (aiv-). The form Aineas 
(as at Acts 9:33), as opposed to Aincias, is 
originally the Doric dialect form according 
to PAPE-BENSELER 1884 s.v.; the Latin is in 
either case Aeneas. 

Il. Aeneas, the son of lame Anchises 
and the Goddess ~»Aphrodite (Venus), is 
presented as a member of a cadet branch of 
the Trojan royal family and the most distin- 
guished Trojan warrior other than Hektor. 
He is specially favoured and protected in the 
Iliad, by -*Apollo, -*Poscidon and of course 
Aphrodite. Poseidon is made to base this 
protection (/liad 20:306-8) on a prophecy 
that Aeneas and his descendants will rule 
the Trojans after the destruction of the line 
of Priam. This leads to a legend of his 
travels to account for the existence of Aincia 
in the Chalkidike, whose coins depicted him 
as early as the late 6th century BCE 
(MALTEN 1931:35; GALINKSY 1969:111- 
112) and several other places and peoples in 
Greece (MALTEN 1931:56-57). 

A special role in European cultural his- 


11 


tory is played by the development of the 
myth that Aeneas’ arrival in Italy led to the 
foundation of Rome. Though elements may 
go back to Stesichoros in the 6th century 
BCE (GALINSKY 1969:106-13; OGILVIE 1965: 
33, but cf. PERRET 1942:849), by the 5th 
century it was accepted (GALINSKY 1969: 
77.103) that Trojans had reached Sicily 
(Thucydides 6, 2, 3) and that Aeneas had 
founded Rome (Hellanikos, FGH 4F84). 
This migration of the myth may be traceable 
to the western interests and westward move- 
ments of Phokaians in the 7th and 6th cen- 
turies BCE and, in particular, their associ- 
ation with the Etruscans (BOMER 1951: 
36-9). The theme was certainly securely 
established in Roman literary tradition long 
before Virgil's definitive presentation in his 
Aeneid, His epic depicts Aeneas as a man of 
exemplary piety towards the gods (as in his 
emblematic rescue of the holies from Troy), 
towards his family (as in his emblematic 
rescue of Anchises from Troy, carried on his 
shoulders) and towards his people. The char- 
acter of Aeneas is instrumental in Virgil's 
presentation of a Roman mission to rule the 
world with civilised imperialism, reflecting 
the régime of Augustus and its claim to 
moral authority after the collapse of the 
Roman state into civil war (49-31 BCE). 

III. It may seem curious that so elevated 
a name should be assigned to the cripple in 
Acts 9:33-34, but Greek culture—to which 
the author of Acts belonged—was unlikely 
to have taken cognisance of a Latin text 
such as Virgil's. [t is best regarded as a 
solid, traditional name dignified by its 
bearer in Homeric epic (~Jason). Examples 
occur, if not overly frequently, throughout 
Greek history—for instance, a Corinthian 
representative in Thucydides (4:119; 423 
BCE), or an Arcadian general (367 BCE) 
mentioned by Xenophon who is the prob- 
able author of an extant work on military 
strategy (‘Aeneas Tacticus’). FRASER- 
MATTHEWS list 35 instances (but 183 for 
Jason), several in the last century BCE, but 
very few after Christ, probably a sampling 
error. One Aencas is an emissary sent by the 
high priest (late 2nd century BcE Pergamene 
decree in Jos. Ant. 14, 10, 22), the son of 


AGREEMENT 


‘Antipatros’, perhaps grandson of ‘Jason’ 
son of Eleazar, and the whole embassy is 
stocked with Jews bearing good Greek 
names. 
IV. Bibliography 

A. ALFÖLDI, Die trojanischen Urahnen der 
Römer (Basel 1957); F. BÖMER, Rom und 
Troja: Untersuchungen zur Frühgeschichte 
Roms (Baden-Baden 1951); P. M. FRASER 
& E. Matmews (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek 
Personal Names, vol. 1, “The Aegean 
Islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica’ (Oxford 1987): 
G. K. Gauinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome 
(Princeton 1969); W. HoFFMANN, Rom und 
die griechische Welt im 4. Jahrhundert, 
Philol. Suppl. 27,1 (1935) 1-144 esp. 107- 
28; N. M. HonsFALL, The Aeneas-Legend 
from Homer to Virgil, Roman Myth and 
Mythography (ed. J. N. Bremmer & N. M. 
Horsfall; BICS 52; London, 1987) 12-24; 
L. MALTEN, Aeneas, ARW 29 (1931) 33-59; 
R. M. Oaitvie, A Commentary on Livy 
Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) 33-34; W. PAPE, 
revised by G. E. BENSELER, Wórterbuch 
der griechischen Eigennamen (Braun- 
schweig 1884); J. PERRET, Les Origines de 
la légende troyenne de Rome (281-31) (Paris 
1942) [but cf. A. Momigliano’s review in 
JRS 35 (1945) 99-104). 


K. DowbEN 


AGREEMENT MID 

I. The Hebrew word *edít, formally an 
abstract noun (GK § 86 k) but perhaps ori- 
ginally a plural (cf. *edór), occurs about fifty 
times in the Hebrew Bible. lt primarily 
designates a written document containing an 
agreement between two parties. Because in 
most Bible passages Yahweh is one of these 
parties, Sediit developped the connotation of 
‘covenant’ and ‘covenantal stipulations’ 
(SIMIAN- YOFRE 1986:1125-1128). Its Semi- 
tic cognates, “dy in Aramaic and adi in 
Akkadian, refer to a sworn agreement 
between two political parties. In first millen- 
nium Mesopotamian texts the sworn agree- 
ment (or its material token) could be hypos- 
tatized and thus occur as thcophoric element 
in personal names. 


12 


II. The Akkadian word adi, plur. adé, is 
well attested in first millennium political 
and juridical texts from Assyria and Babylo- 
nia. The exact understanding of the word 
has been disputed. In the Assyrian political 
organization, adit was the term used to indi- 
cate sworn agreements, both between indep- 
endent rulers and between subordinates or 
vassals and the superior party. According to 
WATANABE (1987:24), the term adé has first 
of all a religious connotation, indicating the 
relationship between the gods witnessing the 
agreement and the party swearing the oath. 
The sworn agreement was an old institution, 
well documented in Old Babylonian Mari 
(see DuRAND 1991 and other studies in the 
same volume), for which adft/adé was intro- 
duced as a special term in the Neo-Assyrian 
period. The etymology is disputed; most 
scholars consider it an Assyrian loan from 
Aramaic ‘d(y), but the etymology of the 
Semitic root remains uncertain (LEMAIRE & 
DuRAND ~~ _1984:91-106; 9 SIMIAN- YOFRE 
1986:1108-1110). The institution of sworn 
agreements seems authentically Mesopota- 
mian and older than the Arameans (PARPO- 
LA 1987:180-83; DuRAND 1991). DURAND 
1991:70 opts for a Mesopotamian etymolo- 
gy by assuming a relationship with Sume- 
rian 4.du, also attested as Akkadian adiim 
‘work assignment’ (CAD A/1 adfi C). This 
would imply an Akkadian loan word in 
Aramaic, but the initial ‘ayin remains pro- 
blematic (LEMAIRE & DURAND 1984:103). 

There is evidence for the hypostatized 
‘adé of the king’ which became an object of 
religious emotion and worship. Firstly, there 
is a broken passage in Esarhaddon’s succes- 
sion treaty, in which vassal rulers and subor- 
dinates are required to guard the treaty tablet 
‘like your god’ (ki ilikunu; SAA 2 no. 
6:409; cf. K. WATANABE, Die Sieglung der 
»Vasallenvertrige Asarhaddons« durch den 
Gott Assur, BagM 16 [1985] 388; SAA 2 
45). More significant is the occurence of an 
oath sworn “by deities and the adá of the 
king” in Baylonian texts (ina DN ... u adé 
Xa Sarri tami). In other passages this royal 
adü can be described as an avenging force 
threatening anyone who breaks the agree- 


AH — AION 


ee SSS SS 


ment. “May Anu and [Star and the adit of 
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, order 
the destruction of whoever changes this con- 
tract” (AnOr 8 [1933] 14:30-33; see CAD 
A/1 134-135 for other examples). Other pas- 
sages mention the possibility of the royal 
adá turning into a divine opponent (bel 
dini). The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 
separates the references to the hypostatized 
adii, ‘majesty (2). power (?)’, from adi, ‘a 
type of formal agreement’ (CAD A/I s.v. 
adû A and adû B), but it has been shown 
that this classification is to be abandoned: 
all references can be attributed to a single 
noun adû (all references and literature col- 
lected by WATANABE 1987:6-25). Thirdly 
there are personal names of the Seleucid 
period with the theophoric element 4Adêšu, 
‘his ad’, the personal suffix undoubtedly 
referring to the king (Scuorz 1981/82; 
DALLEY 1986:91; WATANABE 1987:23 and 
25). 

It is certain that the adii-agreement, being 
a highly important instrument in the Assy- 
rian internal and imperial administration, 
could be hypostatized and obtain divine 
characteristics. The indications adduced to 
connect ad with salmu / salam Sarri, the 
deified statue (of the king) known mainly 
from Late Assyrian texts (DALLEY 1986:91- 
93; —image), arc insufficient to warrant an 
identification. It seems methodologically 
preferable to separate the names. 

III. In the Hebrew Bible, “édiir is used as 
a term for a treaty or covenant and, by 
extension, for the moral and religious requi- 
rements contained therein. In 2 Kgs 11:12 
‘eédiit occurs as a concrete object which, 
together with the diadem (nezer), is given 
by the high priest to the newly crowned 
king. Commentators have proposed to inter- 
pret also this occurrence of “édfir as ‘(divi- 
ne) command, testimony’, interpreting it as 
a written document, possibly containing 
some divine justification for the new reign 
(G. von Rap, Das judiüische Kónigsritual, 
TLZ 72 [1947] 211-16, esp. 213; K. VAN 
DER TOORN, Sin and Sanction in Israel and 
Mesopotamia [Assen 1986] 181-82 note 131 
& lit: SIMIAN-YOFRE 1986:1126); one could 


13 


imagine a collection of loyalty oaths or 
prophecies, testifying to the divine election 
of the new king. Others prefer to consider 
“edit in 2 Kgs 11:12 as a material object. 
CocGAN & TADMOR connect DT12 in this 
passage with the root ‘DH, ‘to deck (onc- 
self), and take it as a plural of ‘adi, 
‘jewels’, or the like (M. CoGAN & H. TAD- 
MOR, /| Kings [AB 11; New York 1988) 
128). The suggestion of YEIVIN (1974), fol- 
lowed by DaLLEY (1986:92), to translate 
mD in 2 Kgs 11:12 as ‘winged solar disk’ 
scems too bold to be accepted. Their argu- 
ment is based on the reading of the damaged 
passage KA/ 10:5 and remains therefore 
hypothetical. Unlike the related concept of 
—curse (^alá), Heb *edáüt has been ncither 
hypostasized nor deified. 
IV. Bibliography 

S. DALLEY, The god Salmu and the winged 
disk, /raq 48 (1986) 85-101; J.-M. 
DURAND, Précurseurs syriens aux protoco- 
les néo-assyriens, Marchands, diplomates et 
empereurs: études sur la civilisation méso- 
potamienne offertes à Paul Garelli (ed. D. 
Charpin & F. Joannès; Paris 1991) 13-71; 
A. LEMAIRE & J.-M. DURAND, Les inscrip- 
tions araméennes de Sfiré et l'Assyrie de 
Shamshi-ilu (Geneva/Paris 1984); S. PARPO- 
LA, Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal 
Archives of Ninive, JCS 39 (1987) 161-183; 
B. ScHoLz, adêšu, AfO 28 (1981/82) 142; 
H. Simtan-YOFRE, WY, TWAT 5 (1986) 
1107-1128; K. WATANABE, Die adé-Vereidi- 
gung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung 
Asarhaddons (BagM Beih. 3; Berlin 1987); 
S. Yetvin, ‘Edith, /EJ 24 (1974) 17-20. 


F. vAN KoPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN 


AH ^ BROTHER 


AION aiov 

I. Aion docs not occur as a divine 
name or concept in the Bible, although 
REITZENSTEIN (1921) followed by others 
(BAGD, s.v.) considered Aion in Eph 2:2. 7; 
3:9 and Col 1:26 a deity, the evil ruler of 
the cosmos. Aion in Greek has a wide range 
of meanings, 'lifetime, life, age, generation, 


period, eternity’ (LSJ, s.v.; TWNT I, 197- 
204), and can even be identical with cos- 
mos. 

II. REITZENSTEIN (1921) identified Aion 
with Persian zervan akarana, ‘the endless 
time’, and believed it a deity with a real 
cult. He based his opinion on a passage in 
Epiphanius, Pan. 52.22.8-10, describing a 
feast of Kore in Alexandria in celebration of 
her giving birth to Aion on the night of 
January 5-6. Aion is represented by a naked 
figure of wood on a bier which is carried 
seven times round the inner part of the 
temple. The same Ptolemaic Aion would be 
reflected in an Eleusinian dedication of a 
statue of Aion (IG II.4705) and in Ps.Call. 
1.33, 2 (cf. Lydus, De mens. iv.1). Later 
research makes it highly unlikely that Aion 
in these contexts reflects either a Ptolemaic 
divine concept or deity or Persian zervan 
(Nock 1934:79-99; FRAsER 1972:336-338). 
The attribution of a festival to Aion was a 
late innovation, perhaps originating in 
Alexandrian coins of Antoninus Pius of 
138/139 with the legend Aion and a repre- 
sentation of a —phoenix celebrating the 
beginning of a new era (VAN DEN BROEK 
1972:417, 429-430). Aion often is an at- 
tribute of the sun god Helios. who repre- 
sents the course of time, and as such Aion 
occurs in the magical papyri (e.g. PGM I, 
200; IV, 1169; FEsrUGiERE 1954:176-199). 
Aion as a philosopical concept is frequently 
found in the Chaldaean oracles, where it 
represents the second god, a middle figure 
between the highest deity and the world 
(Lewy 1978:99-105). The philosophical 
sense going back to Plato, Tim. 37d, also 
appears in Corpus Hermeticum XI (FEs- 
TUGIÈRE 1954:152-175) and in Philo of 
Byblos, Phoenician History, in Eusebius, 
Praep. Ev. 1 10,7 (BAUMGARTEN 1981:146- 
148). 

In particular during the second century of 
the common era, when nearly all these texts 
were written, there was a certain fascination 
with Aion and with all aspects linked with 
it, but Aion never was a well-defined divine 
concept, and certainly not a personal deity. 

III. In the Bible aión is a very common 
word which usually has the meaning 'eter- 


AL 


14 


nity’ or ‘world’ (cf. Heb *ólám). It never 
occurs as a divine concept or a deity pace 
Reitzenstein and his followers. 
IV. Bibliography 

A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History 
of Philo of Byblos (EPRO 89; Leiden 1981) 
146-148; R. vaN DEN BROEK, The Myth of 
the Phoenix according to Classical and 
Early Christian Traditions (EPRO 80; Lei- 
den 1972) 128, 429-430; A. J. FESTUGIÈRE, 
La rélévation d'Hermes Trismégiste 1V. Le 
dieu inconnu et la gnose (Paris 1954) 141- 
199; P. M. FRasER, Ptolemaic Alexandria Il 
(Oxford 1972) 336-338; M. LE Grav, LIMC 
L1 (1981) 399-411; H. Lewy, Chaldaean 
Oracles and Theurgy (sec. ed. M. Tardieu; 
Paris 1978) 99-105; M. P. NILSSON, 
Geschichte der griechischen Religion Il 
(München 1950) 478-484; A. D. NoCK, A 
Vision of Mandulis Aion, HTR 27 (1934) 
53-104 = Essays on Religion and the 
Ancient World | (Oxford 1972) 357-400; R. 
PETTAZONI, Aion-(Kronos) Chronos in 
Egypt, Essays on the History of Religions 
(Leiden 1954) 171-207; R. REITZENSTEIN, 
Das iranische Erlésungsmysterium, Reli- 
gionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Bonn 
1921) 171-207; H. Sasse, aiwv, TWAT I, 
197-208; O. WziINRICH, Aion in Eleusis, 
ARW 19 (1918/19) 174-190. 


H. J. W. Drivers 


AL 

I. Heb Ali or Eli (« */y) and Alu or Elu 
(< ‘lw) have been identified as the shorter 
and more ancient forms of the term -*Elyon 
(‘lywn), ‘Most High', mentioned in the 
Hebrew Bible. Elyon is a well documented 
divine name or epithet in biblical traditions 
and poetic passages like 2 Sam 22:14 (= Ps 
18:14) and Ps 21:8 unequivocally associate 
Elyon with the divine name YHWH 
(Yahweh). Nevertheless, modern scholar- 
ship has identified Elyon as originally the 
name of an ancient Canaanite deity or as a 
divine epithet, that only with the passage of 
time made its way into carly Yahwistic 
religious traditions. In support of this recon- 
struction, interpreters have cited the Ugaritic 
texts, the Hebrew onomastica, Philo of 


AL 





Byblos’ treatment of the history of Kronos 
where Elyon is apparently mentioned, as 
well as the biblical form ‘ly. 

Il. A passage from one of the Ugaritic 
texts describes the deity -Baal as ‘the Most 
High’ and in this instance the short form ‘ly, 
not ‘lyn, is employed: b'l ‘ly (KTU 1.16 
iii:5-9). Another Ugaritic text written in syl- 
labic transcription mentions "the fields of 
‘aliyu” ASA dal-i-yi (RS 18.22:3'-4 
PRU 6 [1970] SS, 11.3 -4^). It has been sug- 
gested that on the analogy of the phrase 
A.šabia dištar, “the fields of —lshtar", 
which appears elsewhere in the same text 
(1.6-1 1°), Aliyu in 11.3°-4" might likewise 
function as the name of a god or as a divine 
epithet: “the fields of the Ascendant’. Al- 
though the god -*El at Ugarit is closely 
associated with the epithet 'Most High' in 
KTU 1|.111:17-18:. "ly[n]//il, "Elyon... // 
El... ", the proposed reading and relation- 
ship of the two forms remains a matter of 
debate (cf. KTU, pace DE Moor 1979:652- 
653 and note Old South Arabic ?/ ¢ ‘ly, “El 
the Most High". in RES 3882:4-5, 3962: 
5-6, 3965:4, 4335:2-3 following U. OLDEN- 
BURG, ZAW 82 [1970] 189-190, 195 n.42). 

In support of the existence of an ancient 
divine name or epithet */y[n] it should be 
mentioncd for the sake of completeness that 
a deity or divine epithet fal- (= ‘al-?) appar- 
ently shows up at Ebla and later at Mari. 
Whether or not this form is to be related to 
Heb ‘ly[wn], ‘Most High’, however, is diffi- 
cult to assess (it might be related to Semitic 
hal, ‘maternal uncte’). In any case, Elyon's 
Canaanite origins as well as the distinct 
identities of Elyon and El appear again a 
millennium and a half later in Philo of 
Byblos’ Phoenician History. In the frag- 
ments that have come down to us via 
Eusebius' Praep. Ev. (1.10:15-30), Philo de- 
picts Kronos as the offspring of one Elioun 
(4 Elyon). Moreover, Eusebius' Philo at- 
tributes to Elioun the status of Most High or 
hypsistos (-*Hypsistos) and describes him as 
the object of ancient Phoenician worship 
following his death at the hands of wild 
beasts. Kronos on the other hand is equated 
with Elos (= El). 

Ancient Hebrew onomastics might pre- 


serve the divine name or epithet ‘/y in pre- 
exilic and exilic Israclite society. Hebrew 
inscriptional personal names preserved on 
bullae dating from the 6th cent. BCE attest to 
the function of the ‘ly element as an epithet 
of YHWH or y/w(h): ylw*ly, "Yahu is Most 
High", yw'ly, "Yaw is Most High", *Iyhw, 
"Most High is Yahu" and ‘lyw, “Most High 
is Yaw” (N. AVIGAD, Bullae and Seals from 
a Post Exilic Judaean Archive (Qedem 
Monographs 4; Jerusalem 1976]). Moreover, 
the ‘ly element in the personal name yinv‘ly 
inscribed on an 8th cent. BCE ostracon from 
Samaria might function as a divine name 
"May the Most High give life" (no. 55:2). 

III. Scholars have cited several biblical 
texts where they conjecture that the short 
form of the epithet ‘Most High’, ‘ly occurs. 
While most of the proposed passages have 
been rejected by scholars owing to the lack 
of textual or contextual support, there are a 
handful of biblical passages that might 
document the possible use of ‘ly as a divine 
epithet or name associated with YHWH. 
Such passages include Deut 33:12; 1 Sam 
2:10; 2 Sam 23:1 and Hos 11:7 and provide 
some ancient testimony or contextual indi- 
cators that lends support to the reading and 
interpretation of ‘ly as ‘Most High’ (for a 
lengthy list of additional but less likely pas- 
sages from Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the 
Psalms and Job, see VIGANO 1976). 

Such criteria as the assumed antiquity of 
the poem preserved in Deut 33, exclusive 
reliance on its consonantal text (with the 
goal to reconstruct an original) and the 
assumed pervasiveness of the poem's syn- 
onymous parallelism have led to the identi- 
fication of ‘ly in v 12 (in its first ocurrence) 
as the divine name or epithet ‘Most High’ 
(cf. also NRSV). While on the one hand the 
text reflected in the medieval Hebrew co- 
dices of Deut 33:12a reads “may the be- 
loved of YHWH rest securely beside Him” 
(cf. also JPSV) in which a Hebrew form cor- 
responding to the ‘Most High’ is lacking, 
the ancient Greek manuscripts read on the 
other hand “the beloved of the Lorp shall 
dwell in confidence, God (ho theos) over- 
shadows him always ...". In other words, 
the */yw of v 12a was apparently read by the 


Greek translators as some form of a divine 
name or epithet (perhaps ‘ly ‘Most High’). 
Although this could plausibly explain the 
Greek reading ho theos and the verse’s 
restructured syntax, one would have ex- 
pected the Greek equivalent Aypsistos here. 
In any case, several of the versions omit the 
first ‘lyw of the medieval Hebrew manu- 
scripts (Samaritan, Syriac, Vulgate) suggest- 
ing that synonymous parallelism was not 
inherent to the context. Thus the presence of 
the divine name or epithet ‘ly here is doubt- 
ful. 

The assumed antiquity of a given verse as 
well as the presence of synonymous 
parallelism has similarly infomed the recon- 
struction ‘ly as ‘Most High’ in | Sam 2:10: 
“YHWH, his enemies will be shattered, the 
Most High will thunder in heaven, YHWH 
will judge the ends of the earth” (cf. 
NRSV). The medieval Hebrew manuscripts 
read however, “YHWH, his enemies will be 
shattered, He will thunder against them in 
heaven, YHWH will judge the ends of the 
earth" (cf. JPSV; -*Ends of the earth) and 
there appears some ancient versional support 
for the reading of */(y)w here as the preposi- 
tion *al- with pronominal suffix (cf. the 
Syriac w'lyliwn, Targum *lyhwn, Vulgate et 
super ipsos). In any case, the scribes of the 
ancient Greek manuscripts read *I(y)w not as 
the divine epithet or name ‘Most High’, but 
as a form of the verb ‘LH, ‘to ascend’, “the 
Lorn has ascended to the heavens and has 
thundered". 

In a passage from still another supposed 
ancient poem, 2 Sam 23:1, the form ‘al has 
been rendered as the divine name or epithet, 
“the man whom the Most High raised up”. 
But in this instance the form could be the 
occasionally attested noun ‘al ‘height’ (cf. 
also JPSV and Gen 27:39, 49:25, 50:4; Exod 
20:4; Hos 7:16, 11:7). In any case, the Qum- 
ran manuscript of 2 Sam reads ’é/ at 23:1, 
that is ‘El’ or -*'God' for *àl (4QSam?) "the 
oracle of the man (whom) El/God exalted" 
which is in essential agreement with the 
ancient Greek manuscripts "... the man 
whom God (ho theos) raised up”. 

The identification of ‘ly,*Most High’, in 


AL 


16 


Hos 11:7 is based on the assumption that ‘/ 
in the book of Hosca denotes the divinc 
name or epithet associated with Baal that we 
earlier noted appears at Ugarit (cf. also Hos 
7:16 and 10:5). According to this view, the 
prevalence of Baal polemic throughout the 
book justifies such a conjecture “to the Most 
High (‘al) they call, but He does not raise 
them up at all". The reading of the ancient 
medieval Hebrew manuscripts is “when it 
(the people) is summoned upward (‘al), it 
does not rise at all” while the Greek manu- 
scripts preserve an independent reading 
"God shall be angry with his precious 
things". In the final analysis, the unlike- 
lihood of the occurrence of the short form 
‘ly ‘Most High’ in the previously treated 
passages and the ancient versional witnesses 
in favour of the reading of ‘al as anything 
other than the divine name or epithet lessens 
the plausibility of reading ‘ul as ‘Most High’ 
in Hos 11:7 (cf. the LXX on Hos 7:16 eis 
outhen/ouden “as nothing” = Heb ‘al, LXX 
Hos 10:5 epi = the third occurrence of Heb 
‘al, ‘over, for’). 

The name of the priest at Shiloh, Eli, has 
been cited as further evidence for the pres- 
ence of the divine name or epithet ‘/y ‘Most 
High’ in biblical tradition. Whether the 
name indicates that the priest so designated 
once served a Canaanite deity ‘ly (like Baal, 
cf. Ugarit) other than and prior to the ap- 
pearance of YHWH, or that the hypo- 
coristicon alludes to a title already appro- 
priated by YHWH is impossible to decide 
on historical grounds. Although 1 Sam 3:1 
states that "the word of YHWH was rare in 
those days", this might be taken to refer to 
the non-existence of the YHWH cult rather 
than to the neglect of YHWH's command- 
ments. 

In conclusion, while the epithet 'Most 
High’ is attested in ancient Levantine 
cultures both in the form ‘lywn of biblical 
traditions and in the form ‘ly of extra-bibli- 
cal sources, the short form of the divine 
name or epithet ‘ly does not appear in the 
Hebrew Bible. 

IV. Bibliography 
G. W. AHLSTRÓM, The History of Ancient 


ALAY — ALDEBARAN 


Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to 
Alexander's Conquest (Sheffield 1993) 368- 
369, 390: M. Danoop, The Divine Name 
‘Eli in the Psalms, Theological Studies 14 
(1953) 452-457; G. R. Driver, Hebrew ‘al 
(high one’) as a Divine Title, ExpTim 50 
(1938-39) 92-93; J. HUEHNERGARD, Ugar- 
itic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription 
(Adanta 1987) 160; R. Lack, Les origines 
de Elyon, le Très-Haut, dans la tradition cul- 
turelle d'Israel, CBQ 24 (1962) 44-64; J. C. 
DE Moor, Contributions to the Ugaritic 
Lexicon, UF 11 (1979) 652-653; H. 
NYBERG, Studien zum Hoseabuch (Uppsala 
1935) 57-60, 74, 89; NyBERG, Studien zum 
Religionskamnpf im Alten Testament, ARW 
35 (1938) 329-387; L. ViGANO, Nomi e ti- 
toli di YHWH alla luce del semitico del 
Nord-ovest, BeO 31 (1976) 34-62 [& lit, 
esp. p. 34 n. 4]. 


B. SCHMIDT 


ALAY -* AL 


ALDEBARAN JW 

I. The noun DY occurs in the Bible in 
Job 38:32, vocalized 'ayi$. The term *'àá$, 
which appears in Job 9:9, is generally con- 
sidered a variant reading or a less correct 
form of 'ayis; it has also been considered a 
dittography of ‘sh, which immediately pre- 
cedes it (B. Duum, Das Buch Hiob erklärt 
[KHAT; Tübingen 1897] ad loc.). The con- 
text of both occurrences in Job clearly 
shows that 'ayis is the name of a -*star or 
constellation. Its etymological parallels 
Jewish Aramaic yütà? and Syr 'yüto' and 
'iyto? always denote a star or constellation. 
Some scholars have deduced from these late 
occurrences that the correct Hebrew vocal- 
isation should be 'avás or *iyii3 (DRIVER & 
Gray 1977:335). The Hebrew form is more 
likely to be of the type qari, then extended 
in Aramaic to the qat! type, reinterpreting 
the noun. Among the most noteworthy 
derivations are Ar ‘ay(y)it, ‘lion’, ‘ravager’ 
(KB, 702 and HALAT, 778) and Ar gaitu(n), 
‘rain’. The latter derivation is widely ac- 
cepted (MOWINCKEL 1928:62-63; DRIVER 


17 


1956:2: Horst 19743:146). 

II. It is difficult to identify the star 
named ‘ayi§. Valid reasons have been given 
for refuting the suggestion, above all based 
on an unsound etymology, of identifying it 
as the constellation of Leo. Indeed it is not 
easy to explain the entire expression in Job 
38:32 'ayis *al-bànéhà, ‘above’ or ‘with her 
children’. It has been supposed (KB, 702) 
that it may be the large constellation of Leo 
according to the ancient Arabic conception 
that does not recognize Cancer and includes 
the stars of the latter in Leo; furthermore the 
‘children’ are the stars B, y, 5, n of Virgo, 
that the Arabs call ‘the dogs barking after 
the Lion’. 

The most widely accepted opinion gocs 
back to Ibn Ezra (SCHIAPARELEI 1903: 
70-71; MOWINCKEL 1928:55) according to 
whom it is the constellation of the Great 
Bear (Ursa Major): db, *glh, §b‘h kwkbym. 
Most of the dictionaries preceding KB, and 
translations of the book of Job offer this 
interpretation. Some ancient authors (W. 
GesENIUS, Thesaurus Il (Leipzig 1839] 
894-896) associate this term with the Arabic 
root N'$, from which derives the noun ‘bier’ 
or ‘litter’, which the Arabs use to denote the 
Great Bear. They call the stars £, 6. n that 
form the tail of the Great Bear or the shaft 
of the Plough banát na'$, daughters of na'$ 
(the mourning women"), an expression that 
is reminiscent of the one in Job 38:32. 

The Biblica! context does not secm to 
confirm this interpretation. The verbs ‘lead’ 
and ‘come out’ (at a definite time), do not fit 
in well with the Bears, which are entirely 
circumpolar constellations for the latitude of 
Israel, and do not have periodical appear- 
ances but are present at night throughout the 
year. Supposing that the identification of the 
heavenly bodies mentioned in Job 38:3] 
kymh and ksyl with the -»Pleiades and 
--Orion is correct, the identification of ‘ys 
‘1 bnyh of v 32 with Aldebaran and the 
Hyades emerges as the most plausible 
answer (ScuHtAPARELLI 1903:72-76; Mo- 
WINCKEL 1928:62-64; Driver 1956:1-2; 
Horst 19743:146; A. DE WILDE 1981:366- 
368), also in view of the many references to 


ALIYAN 


winter found throughout the text. In Job 9:9 
‘S is named along with ksyl and kymh too; 
the Pleiades, the Hyades and Orion are 
winter constellations grouped in the same 
portion of the sky, while the Great Bear is 
distant from them. Aldebaran, the giant red 
star which represents the eye of the Bull, 
seems to guide and overlook the Hyades 
arranged in a V formation behind it (the 
Assyrians called them is /é, ‘jaw of the 
Bull’). The heliacal rising of Aldebaran and 
the Hyades in autumn coincides with the 
arrival of bad weather and rain. These stars 
are therefore believed to bring rain, and this 
would justify a derivation of the term *ayi3 
from the Ar gaitu(n). 

III. In. the book of Job there are un- 
doubtedly traces of an ancient divine con- 
ception of the stars: sec Job 15:15; 25:5 and 
particularly 38:7 where the expression 
kékébé boger, moming stars, appears in per- 
fect parallelism with béné ?élohim —>sons of 
God. However in the passage under exam- 
ination the constellations are mentioned to 
show the creative power and the organizing 
wisdom of the God of Israel. 

Some scholars see in the expression ‘ʻayiš 
‘al-bdnéha tanhém, “can you guide Ayiš 
with her children?” (Job 38:32) a veiled 
reference to a myth (MOWINCKEL 1928:52- 
54) referring to a divine portent (for 
example bringing the lost children back to 
their mother). However, MOWINCKEL him- 
self (1928:63-64) is sceptical about the 
existence of a saga relating to 'ayis, and 
thinks that the image of a mother with her 
children is an immediate reflexion of the 
particular heavenly configuration of the con- 
stellation, and ‘leading’ in his opinion refers 
to its periodical and punctual appearances in 
autumn-winter season. 

The LXX and the Vg evidently have 
great difficulty in understanding ‘ayis/dS. 
The LXX renders the occurrence in Job 9:9 
with ‘Pleiades’, and that in Job 38:32 with 
‘Vesper’; on one occasion the Vg translates 
it ‘Arcturus’ (and renders the Pleiades in the 
same verse with 'Hyades'), and on the other 
‘Vesper’. For the ancients they were all very 
important stars and were often named to- 


18 


gether. There is an enlightening passage in 
the Talmud, b.Berakot 58b-59a: it debates 
whether this constellation is the tail of Aries 
(the Pleiades) or the head of the Bull (the 
Hyades), and it narrates a cosmic legend 
according to which in order to stop a flood 
on the earth the Lord God took two stars 
from 'ayis. But one day He will retum them 
to her; reinterpreting tnl; as deriving from 
the verb NHM, ‘to comfort’, the Talmud quo- 
tes Job thus: "and ‘ayif will be comforted 
for her children”. 
IV. Bibliography 

G. R. Driver, Two Astronomical Passages 
in the Old Testament, JTS 7 (1956) 1-11; S. 
R. Driver & G. B. Gray, The Book of Job 
(Edinburgh 1977) 86, 335; F. Horst, Hiob 
(Neukirchen-Vluyn 19743) 137, 146; A. 
Konur, Aruch Completum ... auctore Na- 
thane filio Jechielis (Vienna 1878, New 
York 1892) I 332; IV 121; VI 277; S. 
MOowWINCKEL, Die Sternnamen im Alten Tes- 
tament (Oslo 1928) 52-64; G. Scuia- 
PARELLI, L'astronomia nell'Antico Testa- 
mento (Milano 1903) 69-76; G. SHARPE, 
Syntagma Dissertationum quas olim auctor 
doctissimus Thomas Hyde S.T.P. separatim 
edidit (Oxford 1767) I 27-29, 90-91; A. DE 
WILDE, Das Buch Hiob [OTS 22; Leiden 
1981] 366-368. 


I. ZATELLI 


ALIYAN 

I. The negation /6’ revocalized as le? 
has been interpreted as a divine epithet 
‘Victor’ (c.g. M. Danoop, Psalms 1 1-50 
[AB 16; New York 1966] 46; VicANO 1976; 
Cooper 1981) derived from the root L’y. 
The same root is at the basis of the Baal 
epithets aliyn and aliy qrdin and the element 
Py/’r in a number of West Semitic names, 
ancient titles of Baal and his consort 
(SZNYCER 1963). The name of ~Jacob’s 
wife —Leah (nNO, Gen 29:16; Ruth 4:11) 
has been connected with the same root 
(HALAT 487). 

Il. Aliyan, usually translated as ‘al- 
mighty, victorious, puissant', is a frequently 
used epithet in the mythology of the Ugar- 


ALIYAN 


itic Baal. It is often seconded by other epi- 
thets like r&b *rpt "—Rider-upon-the-Clouds", 
also twice in KTU 1.92, zbl b'l ars "the 
Prince, the Lord of the Earth, Baal" and aliy 
qrdm "the mightiest of heroes". Whenever 
used, aliyn always precedes the name of 
Baal, as is usual in epithets of gods; com- 
pare e.g. ir il ab (>El), rbt atrt ym (— Ashe- 
rah), bilt ‘nt (Anat) and ~’ddénay Yahweh 
(~Yahweh). Aliyan never occurs as an 
independent divine name. From a stylistic 
point of view the epithet aliyn describes an 
aspect of Baal which distinguishes him from 
other gods. Outside Ugarit the epithet is 
possibly attested on the so-called Job-stela 
from Sheikh Sa‘d dating from the reign of 
Ramses II (R. STADELMANN, Syrisch-Palis- 
tinensische Gottheiten in Agypten (Leiden 
1967] 45-46, but see also J. C. DE Moor, 
Rise of Yahwism [Louvain 1990] 126). 

In KTU 1.5 ii:17-18 one finds the singular 
phrase aliyn bn b‘l, but this is most probably 
a scribal error (see CTA, p. 33 n. 1; GESE 
1970:122, different ARTU 73). On the basis 
of this and  other—scanty—cvidence 
Dussaud assumed the existence of an orig- 
inally independent Canaanite god Aliyan, a 
god of -*sources and perennial ->rivers 
whose realms are the depths of the —"earth. 
This lord of the earth (b! arg) was first 
adopted as Baal's son and finally identified 
with the Northern Baal in the double name 
Aliyan-Baal (Dussaup 1941). Neither the 
religio-historical evidence, nor the literary 
patterns of the Baal-myth are in favour of 
this hypothesis (SZNYCER 1963:26-27; GESE 
1970:123-124; vaN ZuL 1972:341-345). R. 
DussauD (La mythologie phénicienne 
d'après les tablettes de Ras Schamra, RHR 
104 [1931] 387), H. Bauer (Die Gottheiten 
von Ras Schamra, ZAW 51 [1933] 97) and 
EIssFELDT (1939) may be right in their 
assumption that the Greek word atAtvos, 
either understood as a wailing cry or as a 
noun meaning 'dirge', goes back to the 
phrase iy aliyn b'l iy.zbl.b'lL.arg as in KTU 
1.6 iv:15-16 (cf. —Jezebel). Whether this 
implies a connection between Aliyan and 
the Greek hero —Linos is less certain. In all 
probability the Ugaritic epithet aliyn did not 


19 


originate as the name of an older god of 
vegetation. 

The epithet aliy grdm appears only in the 
fixed formula that introduces Baal's mess- 
ages: thm aliyn b'l hwt aliy grdm (KTU 1.3 
iii:13-14 passim); the parallelism with aliyn 
suggests that the latter was the shortened 
form of this epithet. aliy is usually under- 
stood as an adjective on the pattern of 
*aqtalu, perhaps with superlative force. A 
translation of both alivn and aliy ‘most 
vigorous’, indicating Baal’s vigour and 
youthfulness as distinctive aspects of his 
divinity, is more appropriate than 'victor- 
ious’. grdm is most probably a plural noun 
to be connected with Akk garrddu or 
qurādu, also an epithet of the weather-god 
Adad (Hadad). For a similar expression cf. 
li--um qar-du 'heroic warrior' (BWL 86: 
263). DIETRICH & LonETZ (1980), however, 
mention the possibility of a chthonic aspect. 
relating qrdm to Mandaic qardum ‘spirit, 
demon'. This would tally with Baal's con- 
nection to the rpum in XTU 1.6 vi and XTU 
1.22 i (Rephaim). 

HI. The verbal root L’y (‘to be strong, 
vigorous’) is attested in Ugarit (ATU 1.14 
1:33; 1.16 vi:2.14; 1.100:68) together with a 
number of derivations other than aliyn or 
aliy like tliyt ‘victory’ or ‘power’ (KTU 1.19 
11:35-36 — /Inghy), dlan ‘strength’ (KTU 
1.108:24-25) and perhaps also in the feinale 
divine epithet or name alit (KTU 1.90:19; J. 
C. pE Moor, The Semitic Pantheon of 
Ugarit, UF 2 [1970] 187-228 no. 27). 
Nevertheless, the root Lv with the opposite 
meaning 'to be weak' also occurs (KTU 1.3 
v:18 and parallels). The same semantic pola- 
rity was probably developed in Akkadian, 
followed by a phonetic distinction la'ü(m) 
‘weak, infant’ and le’fi ‘to be strong, able’ 
(AHW 540; CAD L 151-156; 160-161). It 
exists in Aramaic, in which language also a 
phonetic vanant L‘y/L° occurs (DISO 133 
s.v. CND, 138 s.v. "D9; Jastrow, Dictionary. 
714 s.v. ^22), and most probably in Hebrew 
too (RINGGREN 1982-84:409; SZzNYCER 
1963). In Hebrew, however, contrary to 
Ugaritic, the meaning ‘to be weak. ex- 
hausted’ prevails. Compare, for instance, 


ALLON — ALMIGHTY 


téla’a, ‘hardship, trouble’ versus Ugaritic 
tliyt ‘victory’ or ‘power’. In Hebrew the 
verb sometimes implies strong efforts and 
exertion, usually in vain (Gen 19:11; Isa 
47:13; Jer 20:9). There is no proof whatso- 
ever that it should still have the meaning ‘to 
be victorious, vanquish’ in Ps 68:10 (pace 
e.g. M. Danoop, Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexi- 
cography IV, Bib 47 [1966] 403-419, esp. 
408 s.v. 89; E. Lipixsxt, Les conceptions 
et couches merveilleuses de ‘Anath, Syria 42 
[1965] 45-73, esp. 68 n. 3; DE Moor, Rise 
of Yahwism, 120 n. 93). In the light of the 
inner-Hebrew semantic development of the 
root L’y, the existence of a divine epithet /6’ 
or /é’, ‘victor’ in Hebrew is most improb- 
able (cf. M. Pope apud Cooper 1981:428- 
431). 
IV. Bibliography 

A. Cooper, Divine names and Epithets in 
the Ugaritic texts, RSP III (Rome 1981) 
333-469; M. DIETRICH & O. Loretz, Die 
Baʻal-Titel b‘/ arş und aliy qrdm, UF 12 
(1980) 391-392; R. Dussaup, Les décou- 
vertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l'ancien 
Testament (Paris 1941) 101-102; O. Eiss- 
FELDT, Linos und Alijan, Mélanges Syriens 
offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud (F. 
Cumont et al.; Paris 1939) Vol. 1:161-170 2 
KS 3 150-159; H. GESE, RAAM (Stuttgart 
1970) 121-122; O. Loretz, Die Titelsucht 
Jahwes im Panugaritischen Aberglauben, 
UF 10 (1978) 350-352: H. RINGGREN, NN? 
la@ah, TWAT 4 (1982-84) 409-411; M. 
SZNYCER, A propos du nom propre punique 
*bdly, Sem 13 (1963) 21-30; L. ViGANO, 
Nomi e titoli di YHWH alla luce del semiti- 
co del Nord-ovest (Rome 1976) 34-118; P. 
VAN ZUL, Baal. A Study of Texts in Canaan 
with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10; 
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972) 341-345. 


M. DIJKSTRA 
ALLON — OAK 
ALMAH — VIRGIN 
ALMIGHTY ravtoxpatwo 
I. pantokrator, ‘almighty’, ‘all-sover- 


eign’, ‘controlling all things’, as a divine 
designation, occurs both as an adjective and 
as a noun. Found relatively rarely in pagan 
literature, it is used frequently for God in 
the LXX and in early Jewish writings. In the 
NT this is continued in the Revelation of 
John, which calls God pantokratór 9 times. 
Otherwise, the word can be found once 
more in Paul (2 Cor 6:18), and there it is a 
quotation from the OT. 

I]. In the pagan sphere, pantokratór 
occurs from time to time as an attribute of 
deities such as -*Hermes (Epigr. Graeca 
815, 11; PGM 7,668), Eriunios Hermes 
(CIG 2569,12), Isis (IG V 2,472) and the 
Egyptian sun-god Mandulis (SB 4127,19). In 
addition there are paraphrases of the term, 
as for example in this (Egyptian) inscription: 
Dii tói pantón kratounti kai Metri megaléi 
téi pantón. kratouséi (SIG 3,1138,2-4). This 
could be at least partially due to Jewish 
influence (see Kruse 1949). 

III. Bearing in mind the sparseness of the 
pagan references, there is a remarkable fre- 
quency in the LXX’s use of pantokrator as 
a divine designation (ca. 180 times). For the 
most part (ca. 120 times) it is a rendering of 
séb@ét (--Yahweh zebaoth), a feminine 
plural of sa@bd’ = armies. This is usually 
interpreted as an intensive abstract-plural, 
i.c. as an expression of divine might. There 
are an additional 60 or so uses of the term 
pantokratór in the LXX, 16 of them in the 
Book of Job, as a translation of Sadday 
(7*Shadday). If the rendering of séba’6ér as 
pantokrator is not necessarily conclusive, 
then this translation of Jadday, whose ety- 
mology can no longer be definitely clarified, 
is at least dubious. What is more, the LXX 
has some dozen of occurrences of 
pantokratór which do not appear in the 
Hebrew text. This shows that the concept of 
God's power was reinforced by the transla- 
tors of the LXX, and sometimes even intro- 
duced (as is the case, by the way, with 
kyrios as the translation of the tetragram). 
This should probably be understood as a 
Jewish reaction to the idea of a comprehen- 
sive global power, introduced by Alexander 
the Great and adopted by the Hellenistic 


20 


ALMIGHTY 


monarchies and, finally, by the Roman 
Empire, an idea which, after all, is also 
given a religious basis (cf. the religious epi- 
thets of the rulers, such as sóter, epiphanes, 
deus et dominus, etc. »ruler cult). The Hel- 
lenistic and Roman sense of mission and 
superiority thus expressed, resulted not only 
in the continued political and increasing 
economic dependence of Palestine. but also 
in greater pressure on Jewish belief, and on 
the way of life it conditioned in Israel and 
the diaspora, to assimilate to Hellenistic cul- 
ture (cf. 1 Macc 1:11-15). In what was prob- 
ably a conscious move to keep at a distance 
from this concept, the translators of the 
LXX emphasised the (already current) con- 
cept of the power of their God over the 
whole of his created reality. 

The early Jewish apocryphal and pseud- 
epigraphical literature confirms this inter- 
pretation. Presumably written between 150 
and 100 sce, the Book of Judith mentions 
kyrios pantokratór five times, always in the 
context of inimical threat either still existing 
or having been repelled (Jdt 4:13; 8:13; 
15:10; 16:5.17). Significantly, the final song 
of Judith ends with the prospect of the 
ultimate victory of kyrios pantokratér 
against all the enemies of God's People: 
"Woe to the nations that rise up against my 
people. The Lord Almighty will punish 
them on the Day of Judgement" (Jdt 16:17). 
Similarly, also in the context of inimical 
threat and inimical repulsion, 2 Macc speaks 
of God as the Almighty (cf. 2 Macc 1:25; 
3:22.30; 8:24; 15:8). A characteristic exam- 
ple of the polemical edge to this divine 
designation is the speech of Judas Macca- 
beus, who rouses his people to attack with 
the words: “They ... trust both in weapons 
and audacity, but we rely on the God 
Almighty, who is able to overthrow our 
assailants and the whole world with a nod of 
His head” (2 Macc 8:18). It is therefore 
appropriate that this ‘Almighty’ is presented 
in 2 Macc as the judge of human deeds and 
misdeeds (6:26; 7:35.38; 8:11 cf 15:32). 
Also significant is the use of this divine 
name in 3 Macc, the work of an Alexand- 
rian Jew of the Ist century BCE. In the face 


2] 


of Ptolemy IV Philopator's intention to enter 
the temple (3 Macc 1), the high priest 
Simon appeals to God against this arrogant 
ruler: “Lord, Lord (kyrios), king (basileus) 
of heaven, ruler (despotés) of all creation, 
holy among holy ones, sole ruler (monar- 
chos), all-sovereign (pantokratór), pay heed 
to us who are sorely vexed by a wicked and 
corrupt man, reckless in his effrontery and 
might. For you who created all things and 
govern (epikratón) the whole world are a 
just ruler (dynastés) ..." (3 Macc 2:2-3). 
With unique intensity, this invocatio heaps 
upon God almost all the available titles for 
rulers in order to identify him as the true 
ruler of this world in the face of strong poli- 
tical pressure. Correspondingly, the first part 
of the ensuing pars epica recapitulates the 
salvation history in the context of God's 
resistance to the arrogant ruler. It closes 
with the praising of God as ruler 
(dynasteuón) of all creation and as all-sover- 
eign (pantokratór). The ensuing reminder to 
God of his promises (vv 9-12) is in tum 
introduced with the invocation to God as 
king (basileus), an address that then finally 
also introduces the prex ipsa (vv 13-20) 
(hagios basileus). A similar structure can be 
found in the prayer of Eleazar in 3 Macc 6. 
Like the threatened people (3 Macc 5:7), he 
too invokes God as pantokratér, and the 
God who then comes to the aid of the Jews 
against their persecutors is thus named (3 
Macc 6:18) and recognised (3 Macc 6:28). 
Philo—presumably due to the Stoic doc- 
trine of the hégemonikon—prefers the 
designation panhégemén for God; he uses 
the term pantokratór only twice, more or 
less as a formula (Sacr. AC 63; Gig. 64). 
Pantokratór is used in a similarly formulaic 
way in a few pseudepigraphical writings, as 
a form of divine address by mortals (3 Bar 
1:3; 4 Bar 1:5; 9:5; Pr Man 1) or angels (T. 
Abr. 8:3; 15:12), and in a blessing (Ep. 
Arist. 185). But what is noticcable here is 
that the address is almost always linked with 
God's creation, often with his day of judge- 
ment, and sometimes also explicitly with his 
sovereignty and his kingdom (cf. Philo, Gig. 
64; T. Abr. 8:3; 15:12). Furthermore, 3 Bar 


ALMIGHTY 


1:3; 4 Bar 1:5; 9:5 and probably also Pr 
Man 1 (cf. 2 Chr 33:1-20) are in the context 
of enemy repulsion and the request for 
God's help and power. Perhaps it is because 
of these political implications — that 
pantokratór does not occur in Josephus. The 
all-sovereignty of God in Ant 10,263 is 
paraphrased (by the Persian Great King 
Darius) as to pantón kratos echón. 

Surveying all this, it is noticeable that in 
early Judaism the addressing or designation 
of God as pantokratór can be found with 
amazing frequency in the context of enemy 
threat. The emphasis on ‘all-sovercignty’ 
seems mainly directed against the claim for 
power (also religiously based) by the Hel- 
lenistic and Roman rulers. The Jews counter 
this claim for power with the declaration of 
belief in the global sovereignty of their God 
as Creator and Judge. Finally, the divine 
designation pantokratór must presumably be 
understood as a Hellenistic-Jewish equiv- 
alent to the concept of the Kingdom of God 
(basileia tou theou), also very important for 
the preaching of Jesus. 

IV. A look at the NT reveals two con- 
trasting tendencies. Outside the Revelation 
of St John the word occurs only once in 2 
Cor 6:18 at the end of a combination of Old 
Testament quotations. The Pauline origin of 
the whole section 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is dis- 
puted. However that may be, it is remark- 
able that the divine predicate occurs in a 
passage where the community is urged to 
make a radical break away from the ‘unbe- 
lievers’ with a harshness of tone that is 
without parallel in the whole of the Corpus 
Paulinum. 

For most of early Christianity, then, the 
divine name pantokratór does not seem to 
have been of major importance although, as 
the example of 2 Cor 6:18 shows, it was not 
consciously avoided. The Revelation of St 
John offers a picture that deviates complete- 
ly from this, with pantokratór occurring 
nine times as God's epithet (1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 
15:3; 16:7.14; 19:6.15; 21:22). This is no 
accident and confirms again the 'political 
character of this divine attribute. The Revel- 
ation of John, written in a desperate situ- 
ation regarded by the seer as a prelude to a 


22 


satanic attempt to exterminate the Chris- 
tians, opposes the Roman Empire and its 
claim to power with a harshness that is 
unique in the NT. In opposition to this 
world power, which, as the ‘whore of Baby- 
lon', is -*Satan's henchman, John the seer 
announces God's new world, which will 
reverse all present injustices and bring about 
final salvation. The prerequisite of this hope, 
however, is the certainty that God is already 
the lord of the whole world and has checked 
the apparently triumphant forces of evil, has 
indeed even defeated them (cf. Rev 12:7- 
12). The shortened expression ho theos ho 
pantokratór occurs twice in connection with 
God's, or his Messiah's, battle against the 
godless people and their Kings (16:14; 
19:15). The more detailed expression kyrios 
ho theos ho pantokratór is used seven times. 
This is the case five times in hymnic pas- 
sages; in the initial vision of the throne it is 
the four beasts who sing his praises night 
and day with the Trishagion (Rev 4:8, with 
the sabaóth from Isa 6:3 LXX being trans- 
formed into pantokratór). Another three 
times God is praised for the judgement he 
has carried out—by the 24 elders (11:17), 
by those who had been rescued (15:3), and 
by the altar (16:7). And finally a great multi- 
tude acclaims him because he has begun 
reigning his kingdom (19:6). The expression 
occurs again at the beginning and the end of 
the book. At the beginning God presents 
himself as he who is, who was, and who is 
to come (1:8). The core of this statement is 
‘to come’, i.e. that God as the lord of his- 
tory also has the future of this world in his 
hands (cf. also 4:8 and 11:17). God is called 
Almighty for the last time in 21:22, in the 
description of the celestial city that needs no 
temple since God himself has his throne in 
it (cf. 22:3). This latter point again suggests 
the motif of God’s reign over his kingdom, 
a motif which occurs astonishingly often in 
the Revelation of St John in connection with 
the designation of God as pantokrator. It is 
directly mentioned in 11:17 (ebasileusas), 
15:3 (ho basileus tón  ethnón) 19:6 
(ebasileusen) and 19:16 (basileus basileón). 
The divine attribute pantokratór. therefore 
stresses, in opposition to the Roman Em- 


ATAR 





pire's claim for world power, God's royal 
power, which embraces the whole cosmos. 
However, this power is—typically apocalyp- 
tic—still hidden; God must first bring it to 
light in the battle against the anti-divine 
forces. 

In the early Christian literature, 
pantokratér is occasionally used for God 
(cf. Did 10,3; / Clem. 2,3; 32.4; 60,4; 62.2). 
sometimes explicitly setting off God the 
Father against the Son (cf. Pol, 2 Phil, 
prol.; Justin, dial. 16,4). But even Clement 
of Alexandria calls Christ, the Father's 
—Logos, pantokratór (Paed. 1,9; cf. also 
Irenacus, Adv.Haer. 5,18,2), and Origen 
makes parallel use of the predicate for both 
Father and Son (Sel. in Ps. 23:10). Under 
the pressure of the anti-Arian controversy, 
Athanasius then emphatically called Christ 
pantokratór (cf. Or. 2 c. Arian 23). 

In summary, the following points can be 
emphasized: pantokratór as a divine desig- 
nation intends to express something similar 
to the more dynamic concept of the king- 
dom of God, namely that God is the Lord of 
his Creation and that in it he has realised or 
shall realise his will. Scen in this way. this 
divine designation is a declaration of faith 
by means of which the believers adhere to 
their God against a reality in which this God 
is painfully hidden and in which completely 
different beings conduct themselves as lords 
and saviours of the world. lt is sensible to 
recall this original 'Sitz im Leben’ because 
the common idea of the Pantocrator as the 
inapproachable celestial ruler is too strongly 
influenced by the Byzantine image of 
Christ, used by a now Christian empire to 
crcate a divine ideal in order to legitimise its 
own claim to world power. 

V. Bibliography 
P. BiARD, La puissance de Dieu (Paris 
1960); T. BLATTER, Macht und Herrschaft 
Gottes (Fribourg 1962); R. FELDMEIER, 
Nicht Übermacht noch Impotenz. Zum bibli- 
schen Ursprung des Allmachtsbekenntnisses 
(BIibTS 13; eds. W. Ritter & R. Feldmcier; 
Gottingen 21997) 13-42; A. GRILLMEIER, 
Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, 
Vol. 1 (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna 1979) 94- 
95; A. DE HALLEUX, Dieu le Pére tout- 


23 


puissant, RTL 8 (1977) 401-422; D. L. HoL- 
LAND, Tavtoxpatwp in NT and Creed, Stu- 
dia Evangelica V1 (1973) 265-266; H. How- 
MEL, Pantokrator, Theologia Viatorum 5 
(1953/1954) 322-378; H. HOMMEL, Schdpfer 
und Erhalter (Berlin 1956); G. KRUSE, Nav- 
toxpatwp, PW 18,3 (1949) 829-830; H. 
LANGKAMMER, llavtoxpütop, EWNT 3 
(1982) 25-27; W. MICHAELIS, xpat£o KTÀ., 
TWNT 3 (1938) 913-914; R. ZOBEL, MINDS 
*6t, TWAT 6 (1989) 876-892. 


s€ba'ó 
R. FELDMEIER 


ALTAR MIN 

I. The word ‘altar’ (nizbeah) occurs 
more than 400 times in the text of the Old 
Testament. It derives from the root ZBH ‘to 
slaughter’: the most important offering con- 
sisted of sacrificial animals. Although offe- 
rings could be made on natural clevations, 
constructed altars seem to be have been 
customary. A main characteristic of the 
ancient Israelite altar was the presence of 
'horns' (géranót). For the OT altar in gener- 
al see HAAK 1992. In the Bible there are 
hardly any traces of deification of the altar, 
but other sources from the ancient Near East 
reflect occasional instances of deified altars. 
The numinous character ascribed to the altar 
is still perceptible in the Bible in proper 
names given to altars (Exod 17:15; Judg 
6:24) and in the practice of the oath ‘by the 
altar’ (Matt 23:20). 

Hl. Deification of cultic objects is a 
common phenomenon in ancient Near Eas- 
tern religions. Objects in close contact with 
the divine presence were believed to con- 
tract numinous qualities themselves and 
could, under circumstances, become objects 
of worship (God I; MEvER 1931:10-13. 
Extensive relevant evidence from third mil- 
lennium Mesopotamia is collected in SELZ 
1997). In some sources from Roman Syria 
the process of deification of cult objects 
focuses on the altar. Greek inscriptions from 
the mountain peak Jebel Sheikh Barakat 
(ancient Kopvon) from ca. 80-120 CE con- 
tain dedications to Zeug Maófaxog and his 
consort XeAapaveg (-*Shalman; L. JALA- 
BERT & R. MOUTERDE, /GLS 2 [Paris 1939] 


ALO — 


nos. 465-469 and 471-473). The same deity 
could apparently be referred to as Zeug 
Boutog 'Zeus of the altar', mentioned in 
another inscription that was found nearby 
(IGLS 2 no. 569). The divine name Máófa- 
xoc has been identified by Ch. Clermont- 
Ganneau as Aramaic madbah ‘altar’ (PW 
14.1 [1928] 202-203 s.v. Madbachos; JALA- 
BERT & MOUTERDE, /GLS 2, p. 259). That 
deification of the altar is a phenomenon 
older than the Roman Period is proven by 
the appearance of madbah as a theophoric 
element in the Aramaic personal name DON 
M333 (E. BresciaNı, Nuovi Documenti 
Aramaici dall’Egitto, ASAE 55 [1958] 277 
recto 5, and Tav. II). ] 

III. The deity Madbah / Maépaxos has 
been linked with the mysterious deity 
Nibhaz venerated by the deportees from 
Awwah who were forced by the Assyrians 
to settle in Samaria. This explanation is now 
generally abandoned (-*Nibhaz). MEYER 
(1931:12) adduces several Old Testament 
passages referring to altars that bear proper 
names in support of his theory that the Is- 
raelites considered altars to have numinous 
qualities. Although his idea seems convin- 
cing, not all the passages he cites are perti- 
nent. Thus in Gen 33:20 the word mizbeah 
(altar) must be emendated into masseéeba 
(standing stone, see K. VAN DER TOORN, 
Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and 
Israel [SHCANE 7; Leiden 1996] 258 n. 
94). Exod 17:15 and Judg 6:24, on the other 
hand, lend support to Meyer's thesis. An- 
other allusion to the deification of the altar 
in Israel is to be found in a passage from the 
Gospel of Matthew, according to which the 
Jews in Palestine took oaths by the sanctu- 
ary, the gold of the sanctuary, the altar 
(0voYaotmpiov), the victim and heaven 
(23:16-31). The inclusion of the altar in this 
enumeration implies its numinous associa- 
tions (cf. VAN DER TOORN 1986:285). 

IV. Bibliography 
R. D. Haak, Altar, ABD (1992) 2.162-167; 
E. Meyer, Untersuchungen zur phóniki- 
schen Religion, ZAW 49 (1931) 1-15; K. 
VAN DER Toorn, Herem-Bethel and Elep- 
hantine Oath Procedure, ZAW 98 (1986) 
282-285; G. J. Sez, ‘The Holy Drum, the 


24 


AM 


Spear, and the Harp’: Towards an understan- 
ding of the problems of deification in third 
millennium Mesopotamia, Sumerian Gods 
and their Representations (CM 7; ed. 1. L. 
Finkel & M. J. Geller: Groningen 1997) 
167-209. 


F. VAN KOPPEN & K. VAN DER TOORN 


ALÛ > AL 
ALUQQAH > VAMPIRE 


AM 09 

I. ‘Am(m) occurs widely as a thco- 
phoric element in Semitic proper names, al- 
though in the cuneiform texts it is not or- 
dinarily marked by the determinative 
indicating divinity. Among the names that 
are commonly classified as "Amorite", there 
are over two hundred with ‘Amun as an el- 
ement. This represents by far the largest 
group; but *Am(m)-namces are also attested in 
epigraphic Arabic (Qatabanian, Safaitic, and 
Thamudic), Hebrew, Ugaritic, Old Aramaic, 
Phoenician, Punic, Ammonite, Moabite, and, 
perhaps, Eblaite. Occurrences of the deity 
*Am(m) in the Hebrew Bible are limited to 
personal names and place names. 

II. On the one hand, ‘Arn(m) occurs fre- 
quently in the position normally taken by a 
divine name, as in Amorite 7-/f-/ja-mu « "lli- 
sammu “My God is ‘Amm™ (RA 57 [1963] 
178), Heb "ly'D "My God is 'Am(m)" (2 
Sam 11:3; cf. Ammonite —"|y'(Du [HERR 
1978:35], Phoen "/*m [CIS 147.6]; Safaitic 
‘ml [see RyYcKMANS 1934:244]) and 'dn*m 
“My Lord is ‘Am(m)” attested in a Samaria 
Ostracon (LAWTON 1984). This suggests that 
‘Am(m) was perceived to be a divine name 
or a substitute for one. On the other hand, 
‘Am(m) also appears as an appellation in 
some cases. This is suggested by the occur- 
rence of the element with the pronominal 
suffix (e.g. Amorite A-a-ha-mu-i= ayya- 
‘ammu-hii, BASOR 95 [1945] 23) and/or 
with obvious divine names, as in the Akka- 
dian names Amma-Siw'en. (A-ma-9EN.ZU in 
MDP II, A 5:3), Amorite names analyzed as 
‘Ammi-Hl, “Ammi-Hadad, ‘Ammi-Dagan, and 
‘Ammmi-‘Anat (sce GELB 1980), Hebrew ‘my’! 


AM 


(Num 13:12), or Moabite kmS%n (HERR 
1974:156). In each case, the meaning of the 
personal name is “(the god) so-and-so is 
(my) 'Am(m)". In a few instances, ‘n ap- 
pears to be hypocoristic, as in Phoenician 
‘m, ‘my, ‘m? (see BENZ 1972). Several 
Eblaite names, too, may be so analyzed 
(KREBERNIK 1988). The names in such cases 
probably stood for fuller, presumably theo- 
phoric, names. 

The element ‘Am(m) is most commonly 
connected with Arabic ʻamm “paternal 
uncle", a term contrasted with Ad/ “maternal 
uncle". Thus, Amorite Harmnurapi has cor- 
rectly been compared with Hálurapi (HUFF- 
MON 1964). Levy's explanation of the theo- 
phoric element in names like Hammurapi as 
coming from HMM “to be hot” (hence desig- 
nating a solar deity) is belied by the spelling 
of the name at Ugarit as Am-mu-ra-pi (PRU 
IV, Pl. LVII, 17.355, 12, 16) and *mrpi 
(KTU 2.39:2; Levy 1944). The theophoric 
element is ‘Amun, which was understood as 
“Paternal Uncle” in old South Arabic (so 
RES 2775.1-2). On the other hand, in a Kas- 
site king-list, Amorite iammu is interpreted 
as kimtum "family, kin". Thus, Hammurapi 
is interpreted as Kimtum-Rapastum “Ex- 
tensive Family” (i.e. ‘Ammu-rabi; cf. Heb 
rhb‘m?), and the name Hammisaduqa is 
interpreted as Kimtum-Kittum “Legitimate 
Family" (5 R 44 i 21-22). It is possible, 
then, that ‘Am(m) had a wider range of 
meaning than "paternal uncle". The word 
originally probably meant “kin”. Hence the 
name ‘Ammi-Anat means “(the goddess) 
Anat is my Kin". 

‘Am(m) is the patron deity of the ancient 
Qatabanians of South Arabia, who were 
known as bnw ‘m “the children of ‘Anun’’. It 
is clear from the inscriptions that ‘Amm was 
a lunar deity in Qataban. Among his epithets 
are ry‘n w-Shrm “He who waxes and re- 
volves”, d-Sgr “The bright shining one’, and 
d-ysrm “The little one”, the latter two refer- 
ring respectively to the ->moon in full phase 
and the new moon (BEESTON 1951). The 
worship of ‘Amm in South Arabia is corrob- 
orated by an Arabic tradition about an idol 
called ‘Amm-anas (“the Paternal Uncle of 
Humanity”) that was worshipped in the pre- 


25 


Islamic period (FAHD 1968). 

Since the Qatabanians were called "child- 
ren of ‘Amun, it has been suggested that the 
name of the eponymous ancestor of the 
Ammonites in Gen 19:38, bn “ny, may indi- 
cate that the Ammonites also venerated that 
lunar deity (HOMMEL 1900). But whereas 
‘Amm was the national deity of the Qataban- 
ians, there is no evidence that he played 
such a prominent role in the Ammonite cult. 
Apart from the name ‘mnndb and the single 
occurrence of the name "ym (HERR 
1978:35), there are no ‘Am(m)-names among 
the Ammonites (HUBNER 1992:256-258). 
The name bn ‘my is unique as an allusion to 
the Ammonites; the most common desig- 
nation for them in the Bible is bn(y) *m(w)n. 
And that is, indeed, their own designation 
for themselves, as is attested in the Tell 
Siran Bottle (ll. 2-3; BASOR 212 [1973] 5- 
11). The etymology of Ammon remains 
uncertain. lt appears, then, that apart from 
the Qatabanian moon-god, there are no re- 
ferences to ‘Am(m) as the name of a particu- 
lar deity. It is more likely that ‘Am(m) in 
most Semitic proper names was originally 
an appellation, which may have been under- 
stood as referring to various deities. In the 
case of the Qatabanians, ‘Amm was the stan- 
dard designation for their national god. 

IIT. It has been suggested that ‘Am(m) 
appears in the Bible in Hos 4:4 and Isa 2:6 
(NYBERG 1935). In both cases, however, ^m 
appears with a pronominal suffix. Indeed, 
apart from the personal names and a few 
toponymns (notably yqn‘m), there is no 
reference in the Bible to the deity known as 
*Am(m). 

IV. Bibliography 
A. F. L. BEESTON, On Old South Arabian 
Lexicography III, Muséon 64 (1951) 130- 
131; F. L. BENZ, Personal Names in the 
Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions (StPsm 
8; Rome 1972) 172.379; *T. FAnp, Le 
panthéon de l'Arabie centrale à la veille de 
l'Hégire (Paris 1968) 44-46; I. J. GELB, 
Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite (AS 
21; Chicago 1980) 260-264; *R. M. Goon, 
The Sheep of His Pasture (HSM 29; Chico 
1983) 10-12.30-31; L. HERR, The Scripts of 
Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals (HSM 18; 


AMALEK — AMALTHEIA 


Missoula, Montana 1978); *M. HÓFNER, 
‘Amm (‘M, ‘AMM, *MN), WbMytih VI 
(Stuttgart 1965) 494-495; F. HOMMEL, 


Aufsätze und Abhandlungen (München 
1900) 149-165; U. HÜBNER, Die Ammoniter 
(ADPV 16; Wiesbaden 1992) 256-258; H. 
B. HUFFMON, Amorite Personal Names in 
the Mari Texts (Baltimore 1964) 196-198; 
A. JAMME, Le panthéon sud-arabe pré- 
islamique, Le Muséon 60 (1967) 57-147; M. 
KREBERNIK, Die Personennamen der Ebla- 
Texte (Berlin 1988) 72.125-126; R. B. Law- 
TON, Israelite Personal Names on Pre-exilic 
Hebrew Inscriptions, Bib 65 (1984) 333; J. 
Lewy, The Old West Semitic Sun-God 
Hammu, HUCA 19 (1944) 429-488; H. S. 
NYBERG, Studien zum Hoseabuch (Uppsala 
1935) 27; G. RYCKMANS, Les noms propres 
sud-sémitiques (Louvain 1934) I, 26-27; II, 
107. 


C. L. SEow 


AMALEK pny 

l. In the Old Testament, the tribe of 
Amalek is one of Israel's enemies of old 
(Exod 17:8-16; Num 13:29 etc). Their 
ancestor is seen as a grandson of —Esau 
(Gen 36:12-16). Amalek can also designate 
a topographical area as in the expression har 
ha‘dmaléqi ‘the mountain of the Amalekites’ 
(Judg 12:15). An etymological explanation 
of the name Amalek has been impossible 
until now (WEIPPERT 1974:252). The 
suggestion has been made to relate the name 
Amalek to a mountain deity /Amirg known 
from an Egyptian source (GöÖrG 1987:14- 
15). 
lI. The Egyptian Leiden Magical Papy- 
rus I 343 + I 345* (ed. Massanr 1954) 
mentions in the context of deities venerated 
in the Canaanite area a mountain deity /unrg 
(III 9; XXHI 3). This deity seems to be re- 
lated to a mountainous area probably in the 
Eastern Sinai. The identity of the deity is 
further unknown. GORG (1987) suggested 
the identity of hmrq with Amalek and the 
interchangeability of the tribal name with 
the divine name. His surmise is based on an 
assumed phonetic similarity between Egypt- 


26 


ian hmrq and Hebrew ‘mig. Egyptian /récan 
easily be equated with Hebrew /l/. Egyptian 
fy is more problematical. It generally stands 
for Hebrew /h/, while Hebrew /‘/ is rendered 
in Egyptian with /*/ (as in ‘yaw jV2 lijon); 
/q/ (as in qdt 52 Gaza) or /g/ (as in gdt i115 
Gaza). Therefore, Górg's surmise is not con- 
vincing. 

In the OT there are otherwise no traces of 
a divine background of the topographic 
designation or the tribal name. 

Il. Bibliography 
*M. GünG, Ein Gott Amalek?, BN 40 
(1987) 14-15; A. Massart, The Leiden 
Magical Papyrus I 343 + I 345 (Leiden 
1954); M. WEIPPERT, Semitische Nomaden 
des zweiten Jahrtausends. Uber die Sifw der 
ägyptischen Quellen, Bib 55 (1974) 265- 
280, 427-433. 


B. BECKING 


AMALTHEIA ‘ApaAéeta 

I. Amaltheia is the name of the goat 
that suckled baby -Zeus right after his birth 
(so Callimachus, Apollodorus, Diodorus 
Siculus), or of the nymph who nursed and 
fed him on goat's milk (so Ovid and Hyg- 
inus). The 'Horn of Amaltheia' ('AuaA0etag 
Képag) was one of the horns of this goat or, 
according to others. a horn possessed by the 
nymph, which provided in abundance what- 
ever one wished, and became the well- 
known image of the ‘hom of plenty’ or 
comucopia. This occurs in the LXX of Job 
42:14 and in T. Job 1, 3 as the name of one 
of Job’s second set of three daughters. Ety- 
mologically, à-4àA0&-ta is probably a sub- 
stantive formed from a privative adjective 
*a-padOns. -€¢ meaning ‘not softening’, 
said of the goat’s udder, that is, always 
tightly full of milk (cf. paA@axds etc., and 
for the formation: à-An8e-ia from à-An8ng 
‘not escaping notice, not hiding; true’). 

II. After Zeus had been born in Crete, 
or in Arcadia according to Callimachus, 
Hymn on Zeus 244, he had to be hidden 
there in a cave, either in Mt Dicte or in Mt 
Ida, in which Amaltheia nursed or suckled 
him, because his father Kronos devoured all 


AMAZONS 


his children. He did so in order to thwart the 
oracle which had predicted that a child of 
his would dethrone him as the ruler of the 
universe. One of the horns of the goat, says 
Ovid (Fasti 5, 111-128), broke off, was 
filled with fruits by the nymph Amaltheia, 
and offered to Zeus. Much earlier, however, 
Pherecydes (frg. 42) told the story that the 
nymph was in possession of a bull's horn, 
which, according to desire, supplied any 
food or drink in abundance. 

A third version has been preserved by 
Zenobius, who assigned to the ‘Horn of 
Amaltheia’ a place in his collection of prov- 
erbial expressions, and stated that it was 
equivalent with another saying, namcly 
‘Heavenly Goat’. The explanation he gives 
is that Zeus, when fully grown, turned the 
goat, in gratitude, into a -*constellation, but 
gave one of its horns to the two nymphs 
Adrasteia and Ida, who had been his nurses 
(cf. Apollodorus 1, 1, 6). On that occasion, 
he endowed the hom with its famous mir- 
aculous power (2.48; cf. 1,26). 

HI. According to the MT of Job 42:14 
the later three daughters bore the names 
respectively of Yémimá 'dovelet' (?), Qésr'á 
‘cassia’ (an aromatic), and Qeren-happik 
‘horn of antimony’ or ‘stibium’ (used as an 
ceyc-liner). In. the. LXX these names are 
represented by 'Huépa -*'day' (evidently 
deriving Yémimá from vórm), Kaota and 
'AuaA0eiag Képag. We have the explicit 
statement of Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. pref- 
ace 24) that the Latin equivalent of the last 
name was 'copiae cornu'. It is interesting, 
therefore. to see that the Vulgate version has 
retained the former two as ‘Dies’ and 
*Cassia', but that the third name is now the 
more correct counterpart of the Hebrew 
name as in the MT: ‘Cornu Stibii’. This cer- 
tainly indicates that Jerome was not content 
here with the LXX, and also that the 
Hebrew original underlying it must have 
been different from the Hebrew text which 
he could use when revising the Vetus 
Latina. What the LXX-translator read was in 
all probability geren tdpiis (‘a horn will 
overflow’), the graphical confusion of hé 
and taw, and of kaph and sadé being quite 


27 


possible in handwriting of the 3rd and 2nd 
centuries BCE. In this case the rendering 
'AuaXO0gtag Képag would be quite under- 
standable. 

IV. According to Lactantius, Amaltheia 
was also the name of the Sibyl of Cumae 
who sold a collection of Sibylline Oracles to 
Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome 
(Div. Inst. 1,6,10-11). 

V. Bibliography 
H. vox Getsau, Amaltheia, KP | (1975) 
287; P. GrimaL (A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop 
transl.), Amaltheia, The Dictionary of Clas- 
sical Mythology (Oxford [UK] - New York 
1986) 35-36; J. Naven, Early History of the 
Alphabet. An Introduction to West Semitic 
Epigraphyand Palaeography (Leiden 1982), 
see fig. 100 p. 113, line 3 for kaph/sidé and 
line 5 for hé/taw; J. B. Bauer, H. Brak- 
MANN, D. KonorL, G. Scuwanz, Horn (1). 
RAC 16 (1992) 524-574 (especially 'Füll- 
horn' 539-547, and 'Horn der Amaltheia' 
560-561). 


G. MussiES 


AMAZONS ‘Apatoves, ‘Apafovides 

I. The Amazons were a mythical race 
of brave female warriors that lived, accor- 
ding to the oldest Greek versions of the 
saga, on the southern and western coast of 
the Black Sea and were eventually defeated 
by men in an Amazonomachia. They do not 
occur in the Bible except possibly in an 
addition to the biblical text by the Septuag- 
int translator of 2 Chron 14:14, where they 
scem to be said to have been part of the 
booty destroyed or captured by the Judacan 
king Asa in his victory over the Cushite 
king Zera. 

II. The etymology of the name Amazons 
is unclear. Ancient popular etymology deri- 
ves it from an alpha privans and maza 
(‘breast’) on the assumption that “they cau- 
terized the right breast so as not to impede 
their javelin throwing” (DOWDEN 1996:69). 
In figurative art, however, Amazons with 
only their left breast do not occur. In 
modern etymological studies a host of differ- 
ent derivations have been proposed (WITEK 


AMUN 


1985:289-290). They are traditionally called 
antianeirai (‘a match for men’) and they 
could not stand the presence of men. Occa- 
sionally they engaged in sex with strangers 
to preserve their race, but they kept only the 
girls. Early mythical traditions relate about 
wars between the Amazons and Heracles 
(his ninth labour was to get the girdle of the 
Amazon queen, Hippolyte), Theseus (who 
had to fight off an Amazon invasion of Atti- 
ca), and many other heroes. They also play- 
ed a variety of other belligerent roles in the 
Trojan cycle (Hammes 1981; BLoK 1995). 
AS courageous women they are prominent in 
various forms of figurative art, many of 
them as named individuals (DEVAMBEZ & 
KAUFMANN-SAMARAS 1981 catalogue 819 
items). Their location at the coasts of the 
Black Sea (esp. in Pontic Asia Minor) chan- 
ged in the course of time as the Greeks got 
to know this area better. As a result it was 
moved to further marginal areas at the edges 
of the known world (BLOK 1996:575). In 
central Greece there were many tombs of 
the Amazons which served as cultic sites 
and there were also annual sacrifices to 
them at Athens. Several cities in Asia Minor 
(esp. Ephesus) celebrated their having been 
founded by the Amazons (DOWDEN 
1996:700). 

Ill. It is unclear why the Septuagint 
translator inserted the Amazons in 2 Chron 
14:14, if the text is about Amazons at all. 
Apart from the fact that the list of booty 
enumerated there contains mainly items of 
cattle, which might suggest that Amazons 
are regarded here as a kind of animals, thc 
problem is that the text has tovg 
“ApaCoveic, an elsewhere completely unat- 
tested masculine form (the fourth cent. BCE 
rationalistic mythographer — Palaephatus' 
interpretation of Amazons as male warriors 
found no adherents). MT’s ‘the tents of cat- 
tle’ (LXX: oxnvàç xmoewv), to which tovs 
“ApaCovets has apparently been added as an 
epexegetical apposition, may also have been 
taken to mean ‘(the tents of) those who pos- 
sessed cattle’ or ‘herdsmen,’ as the Targum 
seems to have done (see J. S. McIvon, The 
Targum of Chronicles [The Aramaic Bible 


28 


19; Edinburgh 1994] 177) and as is also 
done in several modern translations, but the 
problem is that the Amazons were not 
known as flockkeepers either. It is, therefo- 
re, not improbable that (as RUDOLPH 
1955:242 has suggested; see also ALLEN 
1974:167) ‘Apaloveic is here a transcrip- 
tional error for “AAipafovets (AI being mis- 
read as M yields “Appatovetc), which in 2 
Chr 22:1 is the faulty rendering of 
lammahdneh and made into an apposition 
of ‘the Arabs’: ‘the band of robbers that had 
attacked them, the Arabs (and) the Alimazo- 
nians, ...' (the Lucianic recension has here 
“ApaCovietp as well!). In early Jewish lite- 
rature Amazons do not play any further role. 
In Christian literature from the beginning of 
the third century and later, however, they 
are mentioned either as a historical reality or 
as a symbol for an unnatural way of life or 
aggression (WITEK 1985:293-300). 
IV. Bibliography 

L. C. ALLEN, The Greek Chronicles, vol. | 
(Leiden 1974); J. H. BLOK, The Early Ama- 
zons (Leiden 1995); J. H. BLOK & A. Ley, 
Amazones, Der Neue Pauly I (Stuttgart 
1996) 575-576; P. DEVAMBEZ & A. KAUF- 
MANN-SAMARAS, Amazones, LIMC 1 (Stutt- 
gart 1981) 586-653; K. DOWDEN, Amazons, 
OCD (3rd ed., Oxford 1996) 69-70; M. 
HaMMES, Die Amazonen (Frankfurt/M. 
1981); W. Ruporru, Die Chronikbücher 
(Tübingen 1955); W. B. TYRRELL, Ama- 
zons. A Study in Athenian Mythmaking (Bal- 
timore 1984); F. WITEK, Amazonen, RAC 
Suppl. I Lief. 2 (Stuttgart 1985) 289-301. 


P. W. VAN DER HORST 


AMUN jv8 

I. Amun, ;mn, from JMN 'to hide": the 
"Hidden one". The Greeks identified Amun 
with Zeus because of his function as chief 
of the Egyptian pantheon. Amun occurs as 
divine name in Jer 46:25 ('àmón minno 
Amon of No: Amon of Thebes) and Nah 3:8 
(nó? *àmón No-Amon: the city of Amon). 

II. The original nature of Amun is deter- 
mined by two factors: 1. the close relation- 
ship with ~Min of Koptos, the god of 


AMUN 


kingship, fertility and virility; 2. the role of 
Amun as one of the personifications of 
preexistence (cf. Pyr. 466: Amun and 
Amaunet as feminine counterpart, alongside 
Njw and Naunet [water], -*Atum and Ruti 
[creator] and Shu and Tefnut [air], see 
SETHE 1929:§61). Two further aspects dev- 
elop since the lith dynasty with the 
equation of Amun with the sun god ->Re 
and his establishment as the city god of 
Thebes and the state god of a reunified 
Egypt, which implies his status as chief of 
the pantheon (‘king of the gods’, Eg. Jmn- 
R'w-nsw-ntrv, Gk Ammonrasonther, and 
other titles of royal character, see SETHE 
1929:§11). In this function of state god, 
Amun is venerated in the temple of Karnak. 
The most important theriomorphic aspect 
and sacred animal of Amun is the ram (ovis 
platyura aeg.) whose characteristic horns 
appear in the iconography of Alexander the 
Great after his ritual ‘divinization’ (initiation 
as Egyptian king) in the temple of Luxor. 
This latter temple (built by Amenophis IIT) 
is specifically devoted to the god-king 
relationship and the Luxor festival cel- 
ebrates the annual renewal of divine king- 
ship (L. BELL, JNES 44 [1985] 251-294). A 
third Theban temple of Amun, built by 
Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III on the west 
bank at Medinet Habu, is devoted to his pri- 
mordial aspect as Kematef, Gk Kneph “who 
has accomplished his time" (SETHE 1929: 
§§103-110). In Ptolemaic times, the three 
Theban forms of Amun are organized as 
three generations: Kematef (grandfather), 
Amun-Re (father) and Amun-of-Luxor (son) 
(SETHE 1929:§115 goes a little too far in 
distinguishing even four gencrations). 

The theology of Amun as formulated in a 
multitude of hymns (see ASSMANN 1975; 
1983) develops in two stages: 1. from the 
Middle Kingdom until Amarna; 2. from 
post-Amama until the Graeco-Roman 
period. In the first stage (sec ASSMANN 
1983:145-188; 1984:221-232), the nature of 
Amun is unfolded in 5 aspects: (1) primor- 
dial god, (2) creator god, (3) ruler (city god, 
state god and king of the gods), (4) pre- 
server, “life god”, sun god and (5) judge and 


29 


saviour (ethical authority, the god of the 
individual). The second stage reacts to the 
monotheistic revolt of Akhenaten and must 
be interpreted as an attempt to combine both 
the monotheistic idea of the uniqueness or 
‘oneness’ of god and the polytheistic wor- 
ship of the different deities whose ongoing 
cooperation and antagonism forms cosmic 
reality (ASSMANN 1983:189-286). The result 
is the pantheistic idea of a god who is both 
hidden and cosmic, both transcendent and 
immanent, the “One-and-All”, eg. “the One 
who made himself into millions” (ASSMANN 
1983:208-218; ZANDEE 1992:168-176). Amun 
is the god both of preexistence and of cre- 
ation. This means that he did not create the 
world out of chaos, but that he transformed 
himself into the world. The world in its tri- 
partite form as heaven-earth-underworld de- 
velops as the realm for the god in his tri- 
partite existence as ‘Ba’ (sun), ‘image’ (cult 
statue at Thebes) and ‘corpse’ (ASSMANN 
1983:241-246). But in his function as life- 
god, Amun is immanent in a triad of life- 
giving elements viz. light, air and water 
(ASSMANN 1983:250-263). The most im- 
portant concept in this theology is ‘Ba’, a 
kind of soul, which leaves the body at the 
moment of death and is able to pass into a 
celestial or underworld abode and to come 
back to visit the mummy in the tomb. This 
anthropological concept has been extended 
already in the Coffin Texts to the divine 
world in order to explain the relationship of 
a deity and his/her cosmic manifestation: the 
wind as “the ba of Shu”, the light as “the ba 
of Re” etc. In the Ramesside theology of 
Amun, the Ba concept is used to work in 
two different directions: to designate the 
many gods as the Ba-‘manifestation’ of the 
hidden ‘One’, but also the hidden ‘One’ as 
the ‘soul’ whose body is the cosmos 
(ASSMANN 1983:189-218). In this aspect, 
the name *Amun' is avoided in the hymns 
and the god is called "the mysterious Ba" 
(ASSMANN 1983:203-207). The cosmic 
body of god comprises -*heaven and -*earth 
as head and feet, sun and —moon as the two 
eyes, the air as the breath and the water as 
the sweat of the god, but there are many 


AMUN 


other elaborations of the idea of the “cosmic 
god”. (ASSMANN 1979; H. STERNBERG-EL 
HoranBi, Der Propylon des Month-Tempels 
in Karnak-Nord [Wiesbaden 1993] 23-26). 

The most elaborated conception of this 
Ba-theology appears in temples of the Late 
Period (7th and 6th centuries BCE) and dis- 
tinguishes ten ‘Bas’ of Amun as modes of 
his intramundane manifestion (J. C. Goyon, 
The Edifice of Taharqa |eds. R. A. Parker, 
J. Leclant & J. C. Goyon; Providence 1979) 
69-79, 40-41, pl.27.): the first two Bas arc 
sun and moon, the eyes of the cosmic gods, 
they stand for ‘time’ as one of the lifc- 
giving elements; the next two are the Bas of 
Shu and Osiris for ‘air’ and ‘water’. ‘Light, 
in this theology, is represented by the Ba of 
Tefnut. Then come five ‘Bas’ standing for 
five classes of living beings: mankind, 
quadrupeds (living on earth), birds (living in 
the sky), fishes (living in the water) and 
snakes, scarabs and the dead (living in the 
earth). Most important is the Ba responsible 
for mankind: he is identified with the 
"king's ka", ie. the divine institution of 
pharaonic Kingship. 

Among the Theban festivals, four are 
most important: the festivals of Luxor, of 
the. valley, of Min and of Sokar. The first 
two are closely linked with the Egyptian 
concept of kingship. During the Luxor festi- 
val (LdA 4:574-579; L. Bett, JNES 44 
[1985] 251-294), the barks of the Karnak 
triad (Amun, Mut and —Khonsu) and the 
bark of the king visit the temple of Luxor. 
The king, during this visit, undergoes a 
spiritual rebirth as son of Amun. The festi- 
val thus performs an annual renewal of 
kingship. During the valley festival (LdA 
6:187-189), the divine barks cross the — Nile 
and visit the mortuary temples of the kings. 
Whereas the Luxor festival confirms the 
divine descent of the king. the festival of the 
valley confirms his genealogical legit- 
imation; it performs an annual renewal of 
the community with the —dead. Around the 
festival of the valley originates a new form 
of god-man-relationship which later comes 
to be known as “Personal Piety” (ASSMANN 
1989:68-82 [& lit]). In the form of a proces- 


30 


sion the god, who is usually hidden in his 
temple and is strictly unapproachable to 
everybody except the priests on service, 
appears to his people and can be approached 
by everyone who wants to appeal to the god 
for healing from a sickness or protection 
against a danger or persecution etc. Some of 
the prayers to the god from the time of 
Amenophis ll have been preserved on os- 
traca; they seem to have been presented to 
the god in this form during his procession 
(G. Posener, REg 27 [1975] 195-210). 
These texts seem to be first instances of 
“Personal Piety”, a movement which was 
suppressed during the Amarna period and 
which after the failure of this monotheistic 
revolution expanded all over Egypt. Amun 
remained the exponent of this new religios- 
ity. His aspect as judge and saviour of the 
poor became central and a model for the 
theology of other deities as well. The tradi- 
tional ‘theology of maintenance’ concentrat- 
ing on cosmic life and its cyclical renewal 
now changed into a ‘theology of will’ con- 
centrating on historical and biographical fate 
and significance. Catastrophical events, as 
well as miraculous salvations, are now inter- 
preted as divine interventions, a traditional 
conception in the Near East (B. ALBREKT- 
SON, History and the Gods [Lund 1967)) but 
quite new in the Egyptian context (sce 
ASSMANN 1989). 

Around the festival of Luxor originated a 
new form of oracular intervention, which 
during the 18th dynasty is restricted to 
Amun and to questions of the royal suc- 
cession but which after Amarna expanded to 
other deities and to all kinds of human prob- 
lems (LdA 4:600-606). This development 
culminated in the establishment of a regular 
theocracy during the 21st dynasty (end of 
lith century), when Amun assumed the role 
of supreme ruler and exerted this rule by 
means of oracular decisions (LdA 2:822- 
823). Even after this rather revolutionary 
period the Theban region and its neighbour- 
ing nomes continued to form a "divine 
state" within the state, ruled by Amun, his 
clergy and above all by the “god's wife of 
Amun”, a royal princess (LdA 2:792-812). 


AMUN 


The temple and the festival of Luxor are 
devoted to Amun as the god of divine king- 
ship. This aspect of Amun finds its most 
explicit expression in the “myth of the royal 
birth", a cycle of pictures and accompanying 
texts represented in the funerary temple of 
Hatshepsut at Deir el Bahari, the temple of 
Luxor and the Ramesseum (BRUNNER 1964; 
ASSMANN 1982). It tells and shows how 
Amun decides to create a new king, falls in 
love with a beautiful woman who tums out 
to be the queen of the reigning king, visits 
her in the shape of her husband, begets the 
future king, orders ->Thoth to announce to 
her the approaching events and Khnum to 
form the child in the mother’s womb, 
vivifies the child and supports the pregnant 
woman by his breath. The birth and suckling 
of the child are shown, then follow scenes 
where Amun recognizes the new-born child 
as his son and presents him as the future 
king to the Ennead. The cycle ends with 
scenes of circumcision and purification. In 
all extant versions, this cycle of birth scenes 
is complemented by a cycle of coronation 
scenes. Both cycles belong together. The 
meaning of the birth cycle is the adoption of 
the king by Amun as the first step of the 
coronation ceremony. Together with king- 
ship the king enters a new filiation and 
acquires a new biography. In Graeco-Roman 
times this cycle was transposed entirely into 
the divine sphere and the role of the king 
was now played by the child-god of the 
divine triad. The festival called msws ner 
“divine birth” was performed in a special 
building called (in Coptic) "mammisi" 
(birth-place). The myth shows close paral- 
lels not only to the Greck myth of Amphi- 
tryon but also to the birth of -Christ as told 
by Luke. 

The much debated character of Amun as 
‘pneuma’ (SETHE 1929:§§231-235), how- 
ever, seems to be based on a misunderstand- 
ing. The aspect of Amun as a god of ‘wind’ 
(SETHE 1929:§§187-230) has to be seen in 
context of his other cosmic manifestations: 
light and water. The air is just one of his 
forms of live-giving intramundane manifes- 
tations, but not the original nature of the 


31 


god. If there are correspondences between 
Amun and -Yahweh (SETHE 1929:§§255- 
260), they have to be seen in the political, 
ethical and social character of Amun, acting 
both as god of the state and as judge and 
saviour of the poor (sec also J. DE Moor, 
The Rise of Jahwism [Leuven 1990)). 
Another typical trait of Amun that might 
bring him into a certain proximity to 
Yahweh is his comparatively non-mythical 
and ‘non-constellative’ character. There are 
no myths which have Amun for a prot- 
agonist. Amun has a female counterpart 
(Amaunet, also Mut), but is otherwise un- 
related. The association of Khonsu as his 
son is a local construction. 

III. The deity Amun is referred to in an 
oracle against Egypt (Jer 46:25). Within this 
context, Amun is the only Egyptian deity 
mentioned by name. Therefore, it can be in- 
ferred that he was scen as a or the major 
deity of Egypt by the sixth century BCE 
Judahites. In Nah 3:8 the city No-Amon is 
mentioned in comparison. The fate of the 
city should be an indication to the Assyrians 
that their rule will not remain unchallenged. 
The identity of name of the Egyptian deity 
Amun with the Judahite king Amon (2 Kgs 
21:19-26; 2 Chron 33:21-25) rests on homo- 
nymy. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. ASSMANN, Agyptische Hymnen und 
Gebete (Zürich 1975); ASSMANN, Primat 
und Transzendenz, Struktur und Genese der 
ägyptischen Vorstellung cines  'Hóchsten 
Wesens’, Aspekte der spätägyptischen Reli- 
gion (ed. W. Westendorf; GOF IV.9; Wies- 
baden 1979) 7-40; ASSMANN, Die Zeugung 
des Sohnes. Bild, Spiel, Erzählung und das 
Problem des ägyptischen Mythos, Funk- 
tionen und Leistungen des Mythos (J. 
Assman, W. Burken & F. Stolz; OBO 48; 
Fribourg 1982) 13-61; ASSMANN, Sonnen- 
hymnen in thebanischen Gräbern (Theben 1) 
(Mainz 1983); ASSMANN, Ägypten - Theo- 
logie und Frömmigkeit einer friihen Hoch- 
kultur (Stuttgart 1984); ASSMANN, State and 
Religion in the New Kingdom, Religion and 
Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (ed. W. K. 
Simpson; Yale Egyptological Studies 3; 


AMURRU 


New Haven 1989) 55-88; J. F. Borcuouts, 
Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt and its 
Manifestation, Gleanings from Deir el- 
Medina, (R. J. Demarée & J. J. Janssen; Lei- 
den 1982) !-70; H. Brunner, Der freie 
Wille Gottes in der ägyptischen Weisheit, 
Sagesses du Proche Orient ancien (Paris 
1963) 103-117; BRUNNER, Die Geburt des 
Gottkönigs (ÄA 10; Wiesbaden 1964); 
BRUNNER, Persönliche Frömmigkeit, LdA 4 
(1982) 951-963; E. OTTO, Osiris und Amun 
(München 1966); OTTO, Amun, Ldá 1 (1975) 
237-248; S. SAUNERON & J. Yovorrz, La 
naissance du monde selon l'Egypte ancienne 
(SO I; Paris 1959) 17-91; K. SETHE, Amun 
und die acht Urgötter von Hermopolis 
(APAW; Berlin 1929); J. ZANDEE, De hym- 
nen aan Amon van Papyrus Leiden I 350 
(OMRO 28; Leiden, 1947); ZANDEE, Der 
Amunhymnus des Papyrus Leiden I 344, 
Verso, 3 Vols. (Leiden 1992). 


J. ASSMANN 


AMURRU 

I. Amur is the eponymous god of the 
nomadic peoples of the western desert that 
began to manifest themselves in Mesopota- 
mia from the late third millennium BCE 
onward. These peoples are known in cunei- 
form sources as ‘Amorites’ (Amurru, Sum 
MAR-TU). Their god, known as Amurru 
(Akkadian) or Martu (Sumerian), is best 
characterized as a storm god, comparable in 
type with —Hadad or ^Yahweh. References 
to Amurru in the Hebrew Bible are either 
indirect or debated. As the god is ep- 
onymous, his name can be heard in the 
ethnic designation ’éméri, ‘Amorite’. The 
name Amraphel (Gen 14:1.9) may contain 
Amurru as a theophoric element, assuming 
it should be interpreted as ‘Amurtu-has- 
answered’ (Amurru-ipul). A number of 
scholars believe the name —Shadday, usual- 
ly found as El-shadday, reflects the epithet 
bél šadê, ‘Lord of the Mountain’, currently 
carried by Amurru. 

II. The Sumerian name of the god 
Amuru is still a matter of debate. The pro- 
nunciation ‘Martu’ is conventional, since the 


32 


writing ¢MaR-TU would also permit the pro- 
nunciation *Mardu' or 'Gardu'. It is evident 
from Old Assyrian theophoric personal 
names that Sum Martu is equated at an early 
stage with Akk Amurru (H. HIRSCH, Unter- 
suchungen zur altassyrischen Religion [AfO 
Beih. 13/14; Vienna 1961] 5). Though there 
is no proof of a phonetic correspondence 
between the two, some such correspondence 
must be assumed as the basis for the 
equation (cf. the unclarified relationship 
between Kiengir and Sumeru, the Sumerian 
resp. Akkadian designation for ‘Sumer’). 
Sum ‘Maru’ and Akk ‘Amurru’ were pre- 
sumably both attempts to render the un- 
known vocable by which the Amorite 
peoples designated themselves. Alongside 
the writing qstAR-TU there is an alternative 
orthography AN-AN-MAR-TU, perhaps to be 
read as “[]-Amurrim, ‘god of Amurrum’ (see 
EpzarD 1989:437 for a full discussion). 
The name underscores the fact that the god 
must be seen as the personification of the 
Amorites. 

Amurru was introduced into the Mesopot- 
amian pantheon at a rather late stage, since 
he was not included in the family of Enlil; 
as a ‘novice’ he is presented as a son of An 
and Ura’ (KLEIN 1997:104). Marnu has 
many traits of a West-Semitic storm god 
such as Hadad. According to a Sumerian 
hymn, Amurru is a warrior god, strong as a 
lion, equipped with bow and arrows, and 
using storm and thunder as his weapons (A. 
FALKENSTEIN, Sumerische Götterlieder, Vol. 
| [Heidelberg 1959] 120-140). His role as a 
storm god explains why one of the younger 
god lists identifies Amurru as *Adad of the 
inundation' (diSKuR 3á a-bu-be, CT 24 pl. 
40:48). In addition, Amurru is known as the 
'exorcist' (mussipu) of the gods; his curved 
staff (gamlu) frees from punishment (patar 
ennetti, Surpu VIII 41-47, cf. W. G. LAM- 
BERT, Gam Sen not a weapon of war, NABU 
1987/3 no. 92). A similar combination is 
extant in the theology of ^Marduk. Accord- 
ing to the Myth of Martu (also Known as the 
Marriage of Martu) Amurru acquired 
Adgarudu (others read Adnigkidu) as his 
wife (for the Marriage of Martu see J. Bot- 


AMURRU 


TERO & S. N. KRAMER, Lorsque les dieux 
faisaient l'homme [Pars 1989] 430-437; J. 
KLEIN, Additional Notes to 'the Marriage of 
Martu', Memorial Volume Kutscher [ed. A. 
F. Rainey; Tel Aviv 1993] 93-106). Both 
goddesses are little known. More common, 
however, is the pairing of Amurru with the 
West Semitic goddess Ashratu (—^Asherah; 
cf. KLEIN 1997:10S; Kupper 1961:59). 

According to his mythology, Amurru 
inhabits the PA.DUN = hur-sag, literally “the 
mountain”, actually a designation of the 
steppe (CAVIGNEAUX 1987); Amurru is in- 
deed the be! Sadé, ‘Lord of the mountain’ 
(AKKGE 54), as well as the bel séri, ‘Lord of 
the steppe’ (C. B. F. WALKER, apud D. CoL- 
LON, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals 
in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals II, 
Isin/Larsa and the Old Babylonian Periods 
[London 1986] 96:140). He bears the epithet 
“the -Shepherd who treads on the moun- 
tains (i.e. the steppe)” (L. LEGRAIN, The 
Culture of the Babylonians from their Seals 
in the Collections of the Museum [PBS 14; 
Philadelphia 1925] no. 342). The correspon- 
dence between the god Amuru and the 
Amorites is evident: since the latter have the 
steppe as their original habitat, their god is 
believed to dwell there as well. His behav- 
iour typically reflects the characteristics of 
Amorite nomads as perceived by civilized 
Mesopotamians. According to a passage in 
the Marriage of Martu, the god “dresses in 
shcepskins [...], lives in a tent, at the mercy 
of wind and rain, [...] does not offer 
sacrifice [...]. He digs up truffles in the 
steppe, but docs not know how to bow his 
knee [i.e. he is not accustomed to sit down 
for a meal (?)]. He eats raw meat. [n life he 
has no house, in death he lies not buried in a 
grave" (E. CHIERA, Sumerian Epics and 
Myths [OIP 15; Chicago 1934] no. 58 iv 23- 
29). 

The earliest attestation to the cult of 
Amurru dates from the late Sargonic Period. 
His name is a frequent theophoric element 
in personal names under the Third Dynasty 
of Ur (H. LiMET, L'anthroponymie sumér- 
ienne dans les documents de la Je dynastie 
d'Ur [Paris 1968] 158). The god gained 


33 


prominence in the popular religion of the 
Old and Middle Babylonian periods, as wit- 
nessed by his frequent mention (often 
alongside Ashratu) in legends of cylinder 
seals (KUPPER 1961:57-60). In his capacity 
as family god (‘god of the father’), Amurru 
did on occasion receive letter prayers (AbB 
12 no. 99). The cult of Amuru was not 
limited to Mesopotamia proper. Also in such 
‘peripheral’ places as Emar and Alalakh, the 
god Amurru was known (note the harranu 
ša d[A]murri, Emar no. 169:6', cf. J.-M. 
DuRAND, RA 84 [1990] 66 for the correct 
reading; a cylinder seal from  Alalakh 
depicts Amurru as a naked yong man. D. 
CoLLoN, The Seal Impressions from Tell 
Atchanah/Alalakh [AOAT 27; Neukirchen- 
Vluyn 1975] 73 no. 135). 

III. Though the Amorites arc known in 
the Hebrew Bible (as ha’éméri), the god 
Amurru as such is not unambiguously at- 
tested. The personal name Amraphel 
CEN, Gen 14:1.9) might possibly be ana- 
lyzed as *Amurru-ipul, but other etymol- 
ogies have been proposed as well (note 
especially Amar-pi-El, see Ges.!8 78; cf. 
also the suggestion by M. C. Astour, 
Amraphel, ABD 1 (1992) 217-218). 

In spite of the absence of the theonym 
Amurru in the Bible, the god nevertheless 
plays a significant role in OT scholarship. 
The reason for this is the interpretation of 
Shadday (often occurring in the combination 
El-shadday) as 'Mountaineer' or ‘the Moun- 
tain One' (first proposed by W. F. Ar- 
BRIGHT, The Names Shaddai and Abram, 
JBL 54 [1935] 173-204, esp. 184). Various 
authors consider this the Canaanite equiv- 
alent of Amurmu’s epithet bél Sadé, ‘Lord of 
the Mountain’; they draw the conclusion 
that Shadday (or El-shadday) is to be ident- 
ified with Amurtu (e.g. E. Burrows, The 
Meaning of El Saddai, JTS 41 [1940] 152- 
161; L. R. BAILEY, Israelite *£/ sadday and 
Amorite Bél sadé, JBL 87 [1968] 434-438; 
J. OUELLETTE, More on °E] Sadday and Bél 
Sadé, JBL 88 [1969] 470-471; R. DE Vaux, 
Histoire ancienne d'Israël des origines à 
l'installation en Canaan [Paris 1971) 264; 
Cross 1973:57; T. N. D. METTINGER, In 


ANAKIM — ANAMMELECH 


Search of God [Philadelphia 1988] 71). 
Cross explains the combination El-shadday 
by assuming that Amurm is the Amorite 
name (or form) of El. He argues that El as 
the divine warrior of important western 
tribes or leagues was reintroduced into 
Mesopotamia under the name Amuru 
(1973:59). This theory, though speculative, 
is not entirely without merit. The cuneiform 
orthography AN-AN-MAR-TU could be read as 
dEl-Amurrum, ‘the Amorite El’ (K. VAN 
DER Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, 
Syria and Israel [Leiden 1996] 90). The pai- 
ring of Amurm with Ashratu, moreover, 
also suggests an underlying identification 
with El (who is customarily associated with 
Asherah in Ugaritic texts). The interpreta- 
tion of Sadday as ‘the Mountain One’, 
however, is far from certain. On the basis of 
Ug Sd(y) and Heb fadeh, a meaning ‘of the 
field' is much more plausible. The equation 
of (El-)Shadday with Amurru must therefore 
be regarded as unproven. 
IV. Bibliography 

A. CAVIGNEAUX, PA.DUN = hursag et le 
dieu Amurru, NABU 1987/2 no. 26; F. M. 
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic 
(Cambridge, Mass. 1973] 56-59; *D. O. 
EDZARD, Martu, RLA 7/5-6 (1989) 433-438; 
J. KLEIN, The God Martu in Sumerian Lite- 
rature, Sumerian Gods and Their Represen- 
tations (CM 7; eds. I. L. Finkel & M. J. 
Geller; Groningen 1997) 99-116; J.-R. Kup- 
PER, Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps 
des rois de Mari (Paris 1957) 245-247; 
Kupper, L’iconographie du dieu Amurru 
dans la glyptique de la l'* dynastie babylo- 
nienne (Paris 1961). 


K. VAN DER TOORN 


ANAKIM > REPHAIM 


ANAMMELECH 472 

I. Anammelech is a god whom the 
people of Sepharvaim, settled in Samaria by 
the Assyrians, worshipped beside -+Adram- 
melech, 2 Kgs 17:31. On Sepharvaim as a 
West Semitic settlement in Babylonia, see 
Adrammelech. 


34 


II. Many explain the divine name as a 
combination of Babylonian Anu with West 
Semitic melek, ‘Anu is king’ (Gray 1977: 
596; cf. J. A. MontGomery & H. S. Geu- 
MAN, Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951] 476; M. 
Cocan & H. Tapmor, // Kings [AB 11; 
New York 1988] 212). However, the ancient 
Sumerian sky-god’s name is never written in 
cuneiform with any hint of an initial gut- 
tural, and where it occurs in Semitic tran- 
scription it is written "n (J. A. FITZMYER & 
S. A. KAUFMAN, An Aramaic Bibliography, 
Part I: Old, Official and Biblical Aramaic 
[Baltimore 1992] 170 seal no. 24, 52 Uruk 
Bricks), so it is mistaken to seek it here (so 
already A. SANDA, Die Bücher der Könige 
[Münster 1912] 231-232). Thus there is no 
evidence for syncretism of Babylonian Anu 
with West Semitic Melek (= Athtar) here, as 
Gray (1977) argued. Rather, the initial el- 
ement of the name is the male counterpart 
of the well-known West Semitic goddess 
->Anat (‘nt), written *1 (so DRIVER 1958:19; 
ZADOK 1976:117). Personal names from the 
early second millennium BCE onwards incor- 
porate the form (H. B. HurFMON, Amorite 
Personal Names in the Mari Texts 
[Baltimore 1965] 199; R. ZADOK, On West 
Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean 
and Achaemenian Periods [Jerusalem 1977] 
39) yet the deity remains "an obscure 
figure, known only from personal names” 
(S. RIBICHINI & P. XELLA, SEL 8 (1991) 
149-170, esp. 166). Alternatively, it is poss- 
ible that Anammelech is an assimilation of 
*Anat-Melech, a form comparable to Anat- 
Yahu known from the Elephantine papyri. 

III. No light can be shed on the cult of 
this god and his fellow apart from the bibli- 
cal narrator’s remark that the people 
"burned their children in fire" to them. The 
expression fárap (ba'e$), 'to burn (in/with 
fire)’, has been interpreted as reflecting the 
deuteronomistic polemics against foreign 
deities (e.g. WEINFELD 1972). This view, 
however, has been seriously challenged (e.g. 
by KaisER 1976). The action then suggests 
a relationship with the god -*Molech. 

IV. Bibliography 
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria. An His- 


ANANKE 


torical and Archaeological Study (SHANE 
2: Leiden 1992) 99-102; G. R. DRIVER, 
Geographical Problems, Er/sr 5 (1958) 16- 
20; J. Gray, / and II Kings (OTL; London 
19773); O. Kaiser, Der Erstgeborene deiner 
Sohne sollst du mir geben, Denkender Glau- 
be (FS C. H. Ratschow; ed. O. Kaiser; 
Berlin & New York 1976) 24-48; M. WEIN- 
FELD, The Worship of Molech and the 
Queen of Heaven and its Background, UF 4 
(1972) 133-154; R. Zapox, Geographical 
and Onomastic Notes, JANES 8 (1976) 114- 
126. 


A. R. MILLARD 


ANANKE ‘Avayxn 

I. Anankė, ‘necessity, constraint’, pres- 
ented as the personification of the inevitable 
and inescapable, hence of the inexorable 
Fate, plays an important role in Greek relig- 
ious and philosophical literature (SCHRECK- 
ENBERG 1964). The word occurs 43 times in 
the LXX and 18 times in the NT with the 
meanings ‘necessity, compulsion, obligation; 
distress, suffering, calamity; inevitability’ 
(STROBEL 1980) but never as a personi- 
fication of Fate. 

II. Ananké is mentioned by Plato in the 
myth of Er (Resp. 616c-617c) as the en- 
throned governor of the cosmos and as the 
mother of the Moirai, the goddesses of Fate, 
and he presents her as more powerful even 
than the gods (Leg. 818e; SCHRECKENBERG 
1964:81-101). The great tragedians, too, 
testify to her unrivalled power over all other 
beings and her inexorable character 
(Aeschylus, Prom. 515-520; Euripides, Or. 
1330, Alc. 965, Hel. 514; cf. Sophocles, Ant. 
944-954 and the scholion ad loc.), as did 
already the Presocratic philosophers, es- 
pecially Parmenides, in whose writings she 
plays a role of paramount importance 
together with -*Diké and Moira (-*Fortuna). 
In Stoic fatalism Ananke became indistin- 
guishable from Heimarmene. She figures in 
(late?) Orphic mythology, e.g. as the mother 
of Heimarmene and of the triad Aither, 
~Chaos and Erebos (FautH 1975; but see 
SCHRECKENBERG 1964:131-134 against the 


35 


theory of her Orphic origin); and Proclus 
indicates that she played an important role 
in the beliefs of several mystery religions in 
late antiquity (Comm. in Remp. Il 344-5 
KRoLL). In two Hermetic excerpts in Stoba- 
eus the author discusses the mutual demar- 
cation of the roles of ->Pronoia, Heimarme- 
ne and Ananké (fr. XII in Anth. 1 5, 20. and 
fr. XIV in Anth. 1 5, 16, with the comments 
of A.-J. FEsrUGIERE & A. D. Nock, Corpus 
Hermeticum Ml [Paris 1954] Ixxix-Ixxx). 
Her role in the magical papyri as a ‘Zauber- 
gottheit’ (ScHRECKENBERG 1964:139-145) 
still needs further investigation; cf. also her 
function in the Oracula Chaldaica and in 
Gnostic sources (F. SIEGERT, Nag-Hammadi- 
Register [Tübingen 1982] 211). The growing 
‘popularity’ of Ananké in late antiquity is 
certainly connected with the increasing 
influence of astrology and its accompanying 
fatalism. People often felt themselves 
“dominated and crushed by blind forces that 
dragged them on as irresistably as they kept 
the celestial spheres in motion” (F. 
CumonT, Oriental Religions in Roman 
Paganism (New York 1911] 181; for the 
astrological setting also Nitsson 1961: 
506). Pausanias mentions a sanctuary of 
Ananké and Bia (Force) in Corinth, "into 
which it is not customary to enter" (Descrip- 
tio Graeciae 1l 4,6; note the same combina- 
tion of deities in the Gnostic NHC VII 61). 
III. Although the personified Ananké 
occurs neither in the Greek Bible nor in the 
Jewish pseudepigrapha, there is an interest- 
ing Jewish prayer in a Berlin magical papy- 
tus (PGM I 197-222, with a parallel in PGM 
IV 1167-1226) in which Adam prays to be 
saved from the @pa aváyxng (221) As 
PETERSON (1959:124) has demonstrated, this 
must be interpreted in the light of an earlier 
petition in the same prayer in which Adam 
asks to be protected from the power of the 
Saipwv aéptos and of eipappévn (for the 
connection of ànp and Ananké sec Proclus, 
Comm. in Remp. ll 109 KRoLL). This rather 
syncretistic prayer depicts the situation of 
Adam (= Man?) as one who is helplessly at 
the mercy of Fate, over which only the God 
of Israel can exercise power, a motif also 


ANAT 


adumbrated in other magical papyri. 
IV. Bibliography 

P. DRÄGER, Ananke, Der Neue Pauly I 
(Stuttgart 1996) 653-654; W. FAuTH, 
Ananké, KP I (München 1975) 332; *W. 
GUNDEL, Beiträge zur Entwicklungsge- 
schichte der Begriffe Ananké und Heimar- 
mene (Giessen 1914); M. P. NILSSON, 
Geschichte der griechischen Religion ll 
(München 19612); E. PETERSON, Die Befrei- 
ung Adams aus der avayxn, Frithkirche, 
Judentum und Gnosis (Rome 1959) 107- 
128; *H. SCHRECKENBERG, Ananké. Unter- 
suchungen zur Geschichte des Wort- 
gebrauchs (München 1964); E. SiMON, 
LIMC 1.1 (1981) 757-758; A. STROBEL, 
àváyxy etc., EWNT I (Stuttgart 1980) 185- 
190. 


P. W. VAN DER Horst 


ANAT MY 

I. The MT makes no direct reference to 
the goddess Anat, though several scholars 
have proposed interpretations and conjec- 
tural emendations that would create refer- 
ences or allusions to her in the biblical text. 
As the MT stands, however, her name ap- 
pears unequivocally only as a component of 
one personal and one place name, Shamgar 
ben Anat (Judg 3:31) and Beth Anat (Josh 
19:38 and Judg 1:33) respectively. Her 
name might also be evidenced in the place 
names Anathoth and Beth Anot and the per- 
sonal name Anathoth. 

In Ugaritic Anat’s name is written ‘nt, 
and in Akkadian (which cannot represent ‘) 
it is written Hanat, Anat, and (once) Kanat. 
Given the Hebrew spelling with ‘ayin, and 
given that the Ugaritic alphabet included the 
consonants g and A, it seems clear that the 
first radical of her name goes back to proto- 
Semitic *‘. In texts from Emar the name of 
the goddess may be hidden behind the 
Sumerogram SNIN.URTA (Na?’aMAaN 1990: 
254), 

There has been a great deal of specu- 
lation concerning the etymology of the name 
Anat, with no conclusive results. For collec- 
tions of the various suggestions, which typi- 


36 


cally are based on scholars’ perceptions of 
Anat’s character, see GRAY (1979:32] and n. 
42), DEEM (1978:25-27 and notes), PARDEE 
(1990:464-466) and SmitH (1995). Of these, 
Kapelrud's proposal to understand Anat's 
name in connection with the verb ‘dnd “to 
sing" (1969:28: KB's ‘nh IV) can be dismis- 
sed on the grounds that the first radical of 
the Arabic cognate is g, and DEEM's sugge- 
stion of a hypothetical root *‘nh "to make 
love" lacks evidence. The most attractive 
proposal is GRAY's suggestion to compare 
Anat's name with Arabic ‘anwar “force, vio- 
lence” (KB’s 'nh IL, *‘v). This accords 
well with a primary feature of Anat's char- 
acter, and dovetails with W. G. LAMBERT'S 
(VTSup 40 [1986] 132) proposal to see an 
etymological connection between Anat's 
name and the Hanaeans (Ha-nu-ti; see Kup- 
PER 1957:1 n. 1). The Hanaeans were an 
Amorite/north-west Semitic group who are 
referred to numerous times in the eighteenth 
century BCE Mari archives. Also mentioned 
numerous times in the archives is Sha-na-at, 
and a place called Sha-na-atki or bit dha-na- 
atki, which was located about 125 kilome- 
ters downstream from Mari. While no text 
explicitly calls the goddess Hanat goddess 
of the Hanaeans, Lambert’s proposal seems 
nevertheless attractive. However, it should 
be noted that the city of Hanat was not loca- 
ted in primarily Hanaean territory (M. 
ANBAR, Les tribus amurrites de Mari (OBO 
108; Gottingen 1991]). 

II. The available evidence indicates that 
Anat was originally a north-west Semitic 
goddess. The main source of information 
about her in this context is the Ugaritic cor- 
pus of texts. The predominant view among 
scholars is that the Ugaritic texts present 
Anat as a "fertility goddess" who is the 
consort of the god -*Baal. It is also often 
stated that she is the mother of Baal's 
offspring. Some scholars further allege that 
the texts present her as acting like a prosti- 
tute, either to entice Baal specifically, or in 
her general conduct. Even when she is 
described in what seems to be more respect- 
ful terms as Baal's sacred bride, this carries 
overtones of illegitimate sexuality because it 


ANAT 





implies cultic enactments of the so-called 
sacred marriage, which is also referred to by 
many scholars as ritual prostitution. For a 
critique of the widely held scholarly 
assumption that all ancient Near Eastern 
goddesses are sexually active "fertility" god- 
desses. see Hacketr (1989:65-76) and 
WALLs (1992:13-75; for Anat in particular, 
cf. AMiCO 1989:457-492). For a review and 
evaluation of theevidence for the alleged prac- 
tice of ritual prostitution in north-west Se- 
mitic religion, see ODEN (The Bible Without 
Theology (San Francisco 1987] 131-153). 
The view that Anat is depicted in the 
Ugaritic texts as a sexually active and poss- 
ibly reproductive deity has been recently 
challenged by Day (1991 and 1992) and 
WALLS (1992), who argue that there is no 
clear reference in the Ugaritic texts to Anat 
engaging in sexual intercourse. Rather, 
Anat's alleged sexual activity has, in some 
cases, been entirely reconstructed in avail- 
able lacunae, and hapax legomena and other 
cryptic words and episodes have been 
invested with appropriately supportive 
meanings. The argument based on ident- 
ifying Anat with cows that Baal has sex 
with is demonstrably erroneous. In. KTU 
1.10 ii:26-29 Anat is clearly distinguishable 
from a cow that Baal presumably mates 
with, as 1.10 iii:33-36 clearly announces the 
birth of his bovine children. The heifer that 
Baal mates with in KTU 1.5 v:18-22 is also 
clearly not Anat, for Anat subsequently does 
not know where Baal is, and her search 
leads her to the place where he and the 
heifer mated (1.5 vi:26-31). The fact that 
Anat is both described and depicted as 
horned is surely not a feature to be literally 
understood and physically attributed to 
female bovines, but rather is a symbol of 
royal or divine authority. Anat's frequent 
designation as the sister (ahr) of Baal is not 
conclusive evidence of a sexual liason. Her 
epithet ybmt limm has thus far defied 
confident translation and hence cannot be 
used as a basis for arguing that she is pro- 
creative. KTU 1.3 iii:4-8 is most plausibly 
interpreted as Anat singing about the mutual 
attraction between Baal and Pidray, Tallay 


37 


and Arsay (N. WaLLs 1992:116-122). The 
description of Anat as a wetnurse (ATU 1.15 
1i:26-28) denotes her special associations 
with warriors and with royalty (WALLS 
1992:152-154; cf. Isa 49:23; 60:16) and 
does not necessitate viewing her as procre- 
ative (Dav 1992:190 n. 63). Arguments for 
Anat's alleged procreativity that are based 
on theophoric personal names evidenced at 
Ugarit and elsewhere (c.g. EATON 1964:14), 
such as a-na-ti-um-mi ("Anat is my mo- 
ther") and bin-anat (“son of Anat” [both 
names cited by GRÓNDAHL 1967:321]) can 
be challenged by interpreting such kinship 
names as metaphorically denoting status 
relationships, and by viewing these names 
alongside other names such as adanu-ummu 
(“the Lord is mother"), *ttr-um ("Ashtar is 
mother” [both names cited by GRÖNDAHL 
1967:46]) and ha-mi-4Ha-na-at ("Anat is 
my paternal uncle (?]" [H. HUFFMON, Amo- 
rite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Bal- 
timore 1965) 201) cf. Am). Finally, recent 
advances in epigraphic analysis have confir- 
med that KTU 1.96 does not mention Anat 
(Lewis 1996:116-118) and hence the tablet 
can no longer be used as evidence for 
Anat's alleged sexual activity. 

Anat is depicted in the Ugaritic mythol- 
ogical texts as a volatile, independent, ado- 
lescent warrior and hunter. Her epithet btlr 
indicates that she is (as defined by her cul- 
ture) a marriageable adolescent female, but 
it is precisely because she “refuses to grow 
up" and take her place in the adult, female 
sphere of marriage and reproductivity that 
she can remain active in the male spheres of 
combat and hunting. As a warrior she van- 
quishes both human (KTU 1.3 ii) and super- 
natural (KTU 1.3 111:38-46) foes, employing 
typical weapons of combat such as the bow 
(ATU 1.3 ii:16) and sword (KTU 1.6 ii:31). 
Her bloodthirsty nature is shockingly ex- 
plicit in one well-known text (KTU 1.3 ii:3- 
30) in which she is described as joyously 
wading thigh-deep in the blood of slain war- 
riors. She claims (KTU 1.3. iii:38-42; cf. 
1.83 8-10) to have defeated Yamm/the twist- 
ing -serpent (-*Sea, Leviathan), a con- 
quest elsewhere attributed to Baal (KTU 1.2 


ANAT 


iv; 1.5 i:l-3) and a necessary step towards 
Baal's aquisition of kingship. Though sup- 
portive of Baal’s quest for a palace and 
kingship in the Baal Cycle (KTU 1.3 v), her 
interests and actions run contrary to Baal's 
in the Aqhat Epic. In the Aghat Epic, 
Aghat’s existence is attributed to Baal’s 
petitioning —El on Danel's behalf for a 
royal heir. Yet Anat resolves to murder 
Aqhat in order to obtain his hunting bow, 
which he has denied her partially on the 
grounds that bows and hunting belong in the 
male domain (KTU 1.17 vi:39-40; 1.18 iv; 
Dav 1992:181-182). Vowing revenge for 
Aqhat's refusal to give her his bow, Anat 
storms off and threatens El with violence in 
order to secure his support for her retali- 
ation. She then feigns reconciliation with 
Aghat, and possibly offers to teach him how 
to hunt (KTU 1.18 i:24, 29; Day 1992:181- 
182). When it becomes clear that Anat 
intends to murder Aghat in order to obtain 
his bow and arrows, the method she is 
described as employing to achieve her pur- 
pose clearly befits a huntress: she uses her 
accomplice Yatpan like an eagle (nr), a 
bird of prey used by hunters in the ancient 
Near East, to attack and kill Aqhat, her 
quarry (1.18 iv; cf. BARNerr 1978:29* 
n.10). Two other texts also portray Anat as a 
huntress. In KTU 1.22 i:11 birds are her 
prey, and in KTU 1.114 22-23 she leaves 
El's banquet to go hunting. In addition to 
being a huntress, KTU 1.10 and 1.13 poss- 
ibly portray Anat as a benefactress of ani- 
mals (Day 1992:183-188). 

Extrabiblically, and in addition to the 
Ugaritic texts, the following evidence for 
Anat on Syro-Palestinian soil has been ad- 
duced. In a document from Hazor that W. 
Hallo and H. Tadmor date to the 18th-16th 
centuries BCE, the personal names "DUMU- 
ha-nu-ta and ™Su-um-ha-nu-ta are explained 
by HALLO & TADMOR as Anat names (A 
Lawsuit From Hazor, /EJ 27 [1977] 1-11). 
EA 170:43 mentions a person from Byblos 
named Anati, and a Syrian ship captain 
named bn ‘nt is mentioned in the time of 
Ramesses I] (compare EATON 1964:28 with 
BowMAN 1978:225). Several campaign 


38 


records from Egypt mention a Levantine 
Beth Anat (BOWMAN 1978:210-212) and a 
place named gqrt-‘nt also might be Levantine 
(EATON 1964:31). A 13th c. Bce Egyptian 
ostracon mentions a festival of Anat at Gaza 
(B. GnpsELorr, Les Débuts du Culte de 
Rechef en Égypte [Cairo 1942] 35-39), and a 
stele depicting Anat was found in a temple 
built by Ramesses HII at Beth Shan. Both 
Gaza and Beth Shan were important Egypt- 
ian military posts of the time. The Beth 
Shan stele refers to Anat (spelled ‘nit, but 
the final ¢ is simply a graphic marker of 
feminine gender [personal communications, 
T. O. LAMBDIN and J. F. BORGHOUTS]) as 
"the —queen of heaven, the mistress of all 
the gods” (A. Rowe, The Four Canaanite 
Temples of Beth-Shan [Philadelphia 1940] 
33) which echoes KTU 1.108 6-7, where she 
is called “the mistress of kingship, the 
mistress of dominion, the mistress of the 
high heavens" (bit mlk blt drkt b'lt. $mm 
rmm) and which is also consistent with 19th 
Dynasty evidence from Egypt (see below). 
An arrowhead that F. M. CRoss (1980:4 and 
6-7) thinks belonged to the El-Khadr hoard 
and dates ca. 1100 BCE is inscribed with the 
personal name *bdlb't bn ‘nt. Commenting 
on this arrowhead in light of other onomas- 
tic evidence, including the Biqa‘ Dart, which 
he reconstructs as containing the reading bn 
bn 'n[t], Cross notes that the sumame Bin 
‘Anat is associated with military families, 
and that in this context “names bearing—as 
an element—the epithet or proper name of 
the war goddess were no doubt deemed 
fitting if not phylactic” (Cross 1980:7). The 
sumame bn ‘nt is also found on a Hebrew 
seal of unknown provenance that N. AVIGAD 
(Two Seals of Women and Other Hebrew 
Seals, Erisr 20 [1989] 95 [Hebrew], 197*) 
dates to the 8th-7th centuries BCE. Two 7th 
c. BCE Esarhaddon treaties can be confident- 
ly reconstructed in light of each other to 
refer to a West Semitic deity $A-na-ti-Ba-a- 
a-ti-DINGIR.MES, though scholars are di- 
vided over whether the component A-na-ti 
should be understood as the name Anat or 
as a common noun (e.g. compare VAN DER 
TooRN 1992:80-85 and nn. with OLYAN 


ANAT 


1987:170). BOWMAN (1978:247-248) at- 
tributes to Gaza an inscribed situla of Prince 
Psammetichus upon which there is a repre- 
sentation of a goddess identified by the 
inscription as Anat, "Lady of Heaven". 
HvipBERG-HANSEN (1979:86) asserts. that 
the situla dates from the time of Psammeti- 
chus 1, following GRDSELOFrF (op. cit., 28), 
who originally published the situla. Yet 
there seems to be no evidence linking this 
situla to Gaza, nor any confirmation that the 
Psammetichus in question is Psammetichus 
l. Indeed, J. LECLANT (1973:257 n. 37) 
expresses doubts about the authenticity of 
this situla (as well as about the uninscribed 
frontispiece of U. Cassuto's The Goddess 
Anath which, some scholars have argued, 
depicts Anat as pregnant), based upon re- 
peated documentational irregularities regard- 
ing pieces in the Michaelides collection 
(personal communication). Finally, numer- 
ous scholars still follow W. F. ALBRIGHT 
(1925:88-90) in understanding the divine 
name Atta as the Aramaean equivalent of 
Anat, and in understanding the divine name 
—Atargatis as evidence that Anat and 
-Astarte merged to become this single 
deity. However, due to the general tendency 
among many scholars of the Hebrew Bible 
and the ancient Near East to presume that 
goddesses are not clearly distinguishable 
from one another in terms of their roles and 
functions (HACKETT 1989:65-76), the valid- 
ity of proposals to equate goddesses or to 
see in a single divine name the blending of 
goddesses needs critical reassessment on a 
case by case basis. For Atta personal names 
in Syria, see BOWMAN 1978:218-219. 

Four Phoenician inscriptions from Ida- 
lion, Cyprus, three of which were found in 
the vicinity of the Athena/Anat temple, 
mention Anat. Her name is written on an 
equestrian blinder and on a spearhead (RES 
1209a and 1210), thus attesting to her con- 
tinued martial associations. O. Masson & 
M. SzNYcER (Recherches sur les Phéniciens 
à Chypre [Paris 1972] 110) date the blinder 
to the 7th century BCE, and E. Puecn 
(Remarques sur quelques inscriptions phéni- 
ciennes de Chypre, Sem 29 [1979] 29) dates 


the spearhead late fifth/early fourth c. BCE. 
Both publications interpret these items as 
votive. RES 453, found in the church of St. 
George, reads [‘nt in a broken context and 
her name is written on a piece of bronze (M. 
OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, Kypros, the Bible 
and Homer [1893] pl. CXLI, no. 4). Also on 
Cyprus, Anat is named in the Phoenician 
portion of a bilingual text from Larnaka that 
names ->Athena in the corresponding place 
in the Greek portion of the inscription (C/S 
95). Given Athena’s well-known martial 
associations as well as her characterization 
as a non-sexually active, non-reproductive 
goddess, once again the Cypriot evidence is 
consistent with the Ugaritic and other main- 
land evidence. For Anat as a component of 
Punic personal names, see F. L. BENZ (Per- 
sonal Names in the Phoenician and Punic 
Inscriptions {Rome 1972] 382) and 
HviDBERG-HANSEN (1979:143 n. 328) 
Contra OLvAN (1987:169) and ACKERMAN 
(1992:19), the relative paucity of Phoenicio- 
Punic Anat names should not be considered 
an accurate indicator of Anat's waned popu- 
larity or lack of importance in mythology in 
the Phoenicio-Punic world. At Ugarit, where 
she clearly plays a central role in the myth- 
ology, her name seldom appears as a com- 
ponent of personal names (GRONDAHL 


. 1967:83). Note also that Olyan and Acker- 


39 


man neglect to cite the evidence from 
Idalion mentioned above as well as much of 
the first millennium Egyptian evidence cited 
by Leclant and Bowman (see below) in their 
discussions of first millennium data relevant 
to Anat. 

As stated in section one, Hanatv/Anat is 
mentioned numerous times in the 18th c. 
BCE Mari archives, as is a place called 4Ha- 
na-at\i or Bit 4!/a-na-atki, an important city 
in the extreme south-east of the territory 
controlled by Mari. For example, ARM 26 
1/1 no. 196 makes reference to an oracle of 
dHanat conceming troops from Eshnunna 
advancing towards her city (J.-M. DURAND, 
ARM 26 1/1, 423 note e) and ARM 26 1/2 
no. 507 mentions her temple, presumably in 
the city of Hanat. ARM 21 no. 110 lists 
offerings that Zimri-Lim took to Hanat for 


ANAT 


the goddess. The city is mentioned several 
times in Assyrian and Babylonian campaign 
annals (B. K. IsMRIL [sic, Ismail] et al., 
*Ana in the Cuneform [sic] Sources, Sumer 
39 [1983] 191-194). A recently published 
text (CAVIGNEAUX & ISMAIL 1990, text no. 
17) indicates that HanaVAnat continued to 
be an important deity in this city into the 8th 
C. BCE. Indeed, in this eighth century text 
she is called “the most exalted of the god- 
desses, the strongest of the goddesses, the 
greatest of the Igigi...whose valour among 
the goddesses has no counterpart” (šá-qa-a- 
at i-la-a-ti gaš-rat SES ,,.DAR™ GAL-ar di- 
gig-gig-e ... ša i-na $EŠ4.DAR™®S la iš-šá- 
an-na-nu qur-di-šu). For Anat and Atta 
personal names in Mesopotamia, see EATON 
(1964:20) and Bowmax (1978:205-208). D. 
ARNAUD (Emar VI.3 no. 216) finds the PN 
A-nat-um-mi at Emar. 

Evidence for Anat in Egypt has been col- 
lected by J. LECLANT (1973:253-258; add 
the Memphite bowl published by D. B. 
REDFORD in the same year [1973:36-49]), 
whose article is a necessary corrective to 
BowMAN's (1978:223-259) generally well- 
informed discussion. The available evidence 
indicates that Anat made her debut in Egypt 
in conjunction with the Hyksos (for Sinai, 
see M. DUKSTRA & I. BRiGGS, Proto-Sinaitic 
Sinai 527- A Rejoinder, BN 40 [1987] 7-10), 
and she continued to be worshipped in 
Egypt into the Greek and Roman eras. 

What follows is a selective rather than 
comprehensive presentation of the Egyptian 
cvidence. The inscriptions, stelae and statu- 
ary of Ramesses II provide the earliest 
sustained body of evidence for Anat in 
Egypt (LECLANT 1973:253-254 and nn. 5- 
15; BOWMAN 1978:225-234). Ramesses 
regularly calls her the Mistress or Lady of 
(the) Heaven(s) in the context of claiming 
Anat’s support in battle and legitimation of 
his right to ‘universal’ rule. It is in this con- 
text that he claims a mother/son relationship 
with her (cf. the royal ideology of Pss 2:7-9; 
89:10-11.21-28; 110:3). Also in the context 
of an assertion of Ramesses’ prowess in 
battle he is called mhr of Anat, most likely 
to be translated “suckling” on the basis of 


40 


an Egyptian etymology rather than “soldier” 
on the basis of an Ugaritic etymology. He 
had a hunting dog named “Anat is Protec- 
tion” and a sword inscribed “Anat is Vic- 
torious". In short, the picture that emerges is 
remarkably consistent with what we know 
of Anat from the Ugaritic texts. With regard 
to Anat's alleged sexual activity and procre- 
ativity, papyrus Chester Beatty VII can no 
longer be rallied as evidence. Prior to its 
collation with an unnumbered Turin papyrus 
(A. Roccat, Une légende égyptienne 
d'Anat, REg 24 [1972] 154-159) Anat's 
name was read into the lacuna that named 
—Seth's sexual partner. The Turin papyrus 
demonstrates that it is The Seed, not Anat, 
who copulates with Seth. Two other texts 
(Chester Beatty I = The Contendings of Horus 
and Seth and Harris Magical Papyrus III) 
which are typically cited as evidence of 
Anat’s sexual activity and procreativity are 
amenable to other interpretations (WALLS 
1992:145-146, 149-152). Even if it should 
be undoubtedly established, however, that 
Anat is portrayed as sexually active/repro- 
ductive in Egyptian mythology, the Egyptian 
evidence should not automatically be used 
as a basis for reconstructing Anat’s persona 
in northwest Semitic mythology (WALLS 
1992:144-145). With regard to the conten- 
tion that Anat and Astarte are not always 
distinguished from one another, Anat and 
Astarte are indeed sometimes paired in 
Egyptian sources but perhaps this is because 
both were originally foreign goddesses from 
an Egyptian point of view, and so they 
could both, under certain circumstances, sig- 
nify similar things. For example, in magical 
texts both are invoked as protection against 
wild animals and to ward off demons, ‘logi- 
cal' functions for goddesses who are at the 
same time both familiar/assimilated into 
Egyptian mythology and strange/of foreign 
origin. This is not to say, however, that their 
identities had been completely merged. To 
my knowledge, for pre-Hellenistic times, 
only the Winchester relief, which depicts a 
single goddess but names three (Qudshu, 
Astarte and Anat) provides possible evi- 
dence for the actual merging of northwest 


ANAT 


Semitic goddesses in Egypt. According to I. 
E. S. Epwarps (A Relief of Qudshu- 
Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College 
Collection, JNES 14 [1955] 49-51 and 
pl.III), who originally published the relief, it 
is of unknown provenance and peculiar in a 
number of ways. His overall evaluation is 
that the piece departs from strict convention 
both representationally and textually, which 
he interprets as an indication that "the piece 
was the work of an artist who did not 
belong to the orthodox school and who was 
not completely familiar with the Egyptian 
script" (ibid., 51). The present whereabouts 
of the relief is, according to collection's 
curator, apparently unknown (S. WIGGINS, 
The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Ser- 
pent Goddess, UF 23 [1991] 387). Finally, 
mention should be made of evidence from 
Aramaic texts in Egypt. The DN Anat may 
be a component in two DNs at Elephantine, 
‘ntyhw and ‘nibyrl. Again, scholars are di- 
vided over whether to understand the com- 
ponent ‘nr as Anat or as a common noun. If 
it is indeed correct to read Anat as the initial 
component of these names, it does not inevi- 
tably follow that the names should be inter- 
preted to mean “Anat (consort of) — Bethe!” 
and "Anat (consort of) Yahu". Indeed, it 
would be most odd to find a single goddess 
sexually paired with two gods on a standard 
basis at the same time in the same location. 
Dupont-Sommer's decision to read "Baal, 
spouse of Anat” in the last line of a stele of 
unknown provenance (Une stéle araméenne 
d'un prétre de Ba'al trouvée en Égypte, 
Syria 33 [1956] 79-87) is largely based on 
his understanding that Anat is represented as 
Baal's wife at Ugarit and thus proceeds 
from a debatable reading of the Ugaritic cvi- 
dence with which 1 do not agree. S. ACKER- 
MAN (1992:17-18) raises doubts about the 
authenticity of an Aramaic inscription that 
names a certain mi/?l as a priest of Anat. 
The piece was in the Michaelides collection 
(see above). 

IH. The MT makes no direct reference to 
the goddess Anat. However, proposals to 
conjecturally emend two texts to include 
mention of Anat have attracted serious 


4] 


scholarly attention, two additional texts have 
been interpreted as referring to her by epi- 
thet, and two more texts have been under- 
stood to allude to her. In addition, one text 
may make a veiled reference to the Anat 
temple at Beth Shan. 

Several scholars have maintained that 
MT's ‘annét in Exod 32:18 either should be 
conjecturally emended to read Anat or 
makes an allusion to Anat. When explana- 
tions for the appropriateness of such propo- 
sals are offered, one is that the golden -*calf 
constructed by the Israelites was a represen- 
tation of Anat in bovine form, and another 
(not necessarily separate) explanation is that 
the licentious behaviour that the Israelites 
were allegedly engaging in as part of their 
celebration is consistent with Anat’s ‘na- 
ture’. In response to the former, it has been 
demonstrated above that there is no text that 
portrays Anat in bovine form, and in any 
event the calf in Exod 32 is ‘gi, “a young 
bull”, and not a heifer (‘g/h). In response to 
the latter, while there is ample evidence in 
the Hebrew Bible of both the metaphorical 
equation of non-Yahwistic worship and il- 
licit sexual behaviour as well as the charac- 
terization of non-Yahwistic worship as 
including extraconjugal intercourse, there is 
no evidence that licentious behaviour should 
be associated with celebrations in honour of 
Anat. Hence the plausibility of understand- 
ing ‘anndt to mean “revelling” or the like 
does not entail positing an allusion to Anat. 

A number of scholars have recently put 
forward arguments in support of emending 
Hos 14:9b (English 14:8b) to refer to Anat 
and —Asherah (or an 'ásérá ). The plausibil- 
ity of the emendation is seen to be enhanced 
by the discovery at Kuntillet Ajrud of an 
inscription referring to Yahweh of Samaria 
and his 'áXerá /Asherah. (For discussion of 
the interpretation of the inscription, sec S. 
OLYvAN, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in 
Israel [Atlanta 1988] 23-34.) While this 
inscription certainly advances our un- 
derstanding of biblical references to Ashe- 
rah's/her cult symbol's relationship to 
Yahweh, it does not shed light on the al- 
leged pairing of Anat and Asherah in Hos 


ANAT 


14, nor does it clarify in what sense Yahweh 
allegedly affirms that he is Ephraim's Anat 
and Asherah. lt is not a sufficient explana- 
tion to say. as M. WrINFELD (1984:122) 
does, that Anat and Asherah are similar in 
character and that both are responsible for 
'fertility', hence Hosea's alleged point is 
that Yahweh is claiming the goddesses’ 
powers of fertility. In short, no convincing 
argument has been made to support the pro- 
posed emendation, and MT as it stands 
makes good sense. 

In his detailed discussion of Job 31:1, A. 
CERESKO (1980:105-108) proposed under- 
standing MT's bétülá as a reference to Anat 
by the Hebrew equivalent of brlr, the epithet 
frequently applied to Anat in the Ugaritic 
texts (cf. M. PopE, Job [Garden City ?1973] 
229). The form-critical and other issues 
involved in determining the plausibility of 
Ceresko’s suggestion within the broader 
context of Job 29-3] are too complex to 
present here: the interested reader should 
consult the standard commentaries for dis- 
cussion and bibliography. Broader issues 
aside, the more conventional interpretation, 
which draws attention to Sir 9:5, makes 
plausible sense, while following Ceresko's 
line of reasoning it is unclear why Job's 
author would choose a veiled reference to 
Anat to make the general point that Job has 
not worshipped other gods. 

Largely on the basis of Ugaritic and 
Egyptian evidence that Anat was referred to 
as the Mistress of the Heavens and like titles 
(see above), several scholars have suggested 
that the ~Queen of Heaven referred to in 
Jer 7:18 and 44:17 is Anat. The issue of the 
Queen of Heaven's identity has been treated 
recently and in depth by S. OLYAN 
(1988:161-174) and S. ACKERMAN (1992:5- 
35). Although they do not reach the same 
conclusion, their arguments militate against 
secing Anat as Jeremiah’s Queen of Heaven. 

Two proposals to see allusions to Anat in 
the biblical text can be mentioned briefly. P. 
G. CRAIGIE (Deborah and Anat: A Study of 
Poetic Imagery (Judges 5), ZAW 90 [1978] 
374-381) argued that five specific features 
are shared by Anat and the biblical judge 


42 


Deborah. The features elicited are uncon- 
vincing. A similarly unconvincing argument 
to see an allusion to Anat in Cant 7 has 
been made by M. Pore (Song of Songs 
[Garden City 1977] 606). In light of the dis- 
covery of an Anat temple at Beth Shan (see 
section two, above) A. Rowe (The Four 
Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan [Philadel- 
phia 1940] 31) suggested that the Beth Shan 
temple mentioned in 1 Sam 31:10 as the 
place where the Philistines took the slain 
Saul’s armour was the Anat temple. Though 
Rowe arrived at this conclusion based in 
part on the erroneous presupposition that 
Anat and Ashtoreth were names of a single 
goddess, the proposition differently argued 
is a plausible one. The MT refers to the 
place where Saul’s armour was deposited as 
the bêt, "temple", of the 'ástárót, and other 
references to *dstárót in the Deuteronomistic 
history (Judg 2:13; 10:6; 1 Sam 7:3; 12:10) 
make it clear that this plural form had the 
generic meaning "goddesses" (cf. the con- 
temporaneous Akkadian plural ištarātu, 
"goddesses") Thus MT does not identify 
the temple as belonging to Ashtoreth/ 
Astarte, but rather altogether avoids naming 
any particular goddess by using the vague, 
dismissive, and possibly inaccurate plural. 
Given Anat's clear portrayal as a warrior 
and a patron or guardian of warriors and 
royalty in extrabiblical sources, and given 
that we know she had a temple in Beth 
Shan, it makes good sense to suggest that 
the armour of a vanquished warrior-king 
would be brought to her temple by the 
grateful victors. 

Aside from the possibility that Anat is 
mentioned or alluded to in one or more of 
the above texts, her name appears in the 
Hebrew Bible as a component of the name 
Shamgar ben Anat, a warrior reputed to 
have slain with a mere oxgoad six hundred 
Philistines (Judg 3:31; cf. SHUPAK 1989 and 
sec also the El Khadr arrowhead and 
Hebrew seal discussed in section two) and 
in the place name Beth Anat (Josh 19:38; 
Judg 1:33). It has also been argued that a 
dialect variant of her name is found in the 
place name vocalized in the MT as bêt 


ANAT 


*üánót. A. G. AuLD 1977:85-86 can be con- 
sulted for references and a counter argu- 
ment. For a discussion of whether the place 
name Anathoth (e.g. Jer 1:1) and the per- 
sonal name Anathoth (Neh 10:20; 1 Chr 7:8) 
should be derived from the name Anat, see 
BOWMAN 1978:209-210 and EATON 1964: 
33. 
IV. Bibliography 

S. ACKERMAN, Under Every Green Tree. 
Popular Religion in’ Sixth-Century Judah 
(Adanta 1992) esp. 5-35: E. B. Amico, The 
Status of Women at Ugarit (unpublished 
Ph.D. dissertation University of Wisconsin 
1989) esp. 457-492: A. G. AULD, A Judean 
Sanctuary of ‘Anat (Josh. 15:59)?, Tel Aviv 
4 (1977) 85-86; R. D. Barnetr, The 
Earliest Representation of ‘Anath, Er/sr 14 
(1978) 28*-31*; C. H. BOWMAN, The God- 
dess ‘Anane in the Ancient Near East (un- 
published Ph.D. dissertation: Berkeley 1978) 
[& lit; A. CaviGNEAUX & B. K. ISMAIL, 
Die Statthalter von Suhu und Mari im 8. Jh. 
v. Chr, BagM 21 (1990) 321-456; A. R. 
CERESKO, Job 29-31 in the Light of North- 
west Semitic (Rome 1980); I. CORNELIUS, 
Anat and Qudshu as the «Mistress of Ani- 
mals». Aspects of the Iconography of the 
Canaanite Goddesses. SEL 10 (1993) 21-45: 
F. M. Cross, Newly Found Inscriptions in 
Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician Scripts, 
BASOR 238 (1980) 1-20; J. CROWLEY, The 
Aegean and the East (Copenhagen 1989); P. 
L. DAv. Why is Anat a Warrior and Hun- 
ter?, The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis 
(eds. D. Jobling et al.: Cleveland 1991) [& 
lit.J; Day, Anat: Ugarit’s “Mistress of Ani- 
mals”, JNES 51 (1992) 181-190 [& lit}; A. 
DEEM, The Goddess Anath and Some Bibli- 
cal Hebrew Cruces, JSS 23 (1978) 25-30; 
M. DELcon. Une allusion à *Anath, déesse 
guerriére en Ex 32:18?, JJS 33 (1982) 145- 
160; A. W. EATON, The Goddess Anat: The 
History of Her Cult, Her Mythology and 
Her iconography (unpublished Ph.D. disser- 
tation; Yale 1964): R. M. Goop, Exodus 
32:18, Love and Death in the Ancient Near 
East (eds. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good; Guil- 
ford 1987) 137-142 [& lit}; J. Gray, The 
Blood Bath of the Goddess Anat in the Ras 


43 


Shamra Texts, UF 11 (1979) 315-324; F. 
GrONDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte 
aus Ugarit (Rome 1967); *J. HACKETT, Can 
a Sexist Model Liberate Us? Ancient Near 
Eastern ‘Fertitity’ Goddesses, Journal of 
Feminist Studies in Religion 5 (1989) 65-76; 
J.-G. HEINTZ, Une tradition occultée? La 
déesse cananéenne ‘Anat et son 'aséráh [sic] 
dans le livre du prophéte Osée (chap. 14, v. 
9b). Ktema 11 (1986) 3-13; F. O. HVIDBERG- 
Hansen, La déesse TNT (Copenhagen 
1979); A. S. KAPELRUD, The Violent God- 
dess: Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (Oslo 
1969); J.-R. KUPPER, Les nomades en Méso- 
potamie au temps des rois de Mari (Paris 
1957); J. LECLANT, Anat, LdÁ 1 (1973) 253- 
258 [& lit]; T. J. Lewis, The Disappearance 
of the Goddess Anat: The 1995 West Semi- 
tic Project on Ugaritic Epigraphy, BA 59 
(1996) 115-121; O. Loretz, ‘Anat-Aschera 
(Hos 14:9) und die Inschriften von Kuntillet 
*Ajrud, SEL 6 (1989) 57-65; N. NA'AMAN, 
On Gods and Scribal Traditions in the 
Amama Letters. UF 22 (1990) 247-255; W. 
L. MICHEL, “BTWLH, “Virgin” or “Virgin 
(Anat)” in Job 31:12", Hebrew Studies 23 
(1982) 59-66: S. M. OLYAN. Some Observa- 
tions Concerning the Identity of the Queen 
of Heaven, UF 19 (1987) 161-174; D. Par- 
DEF, Ugaritic Proper Names, AfO 37 (1990) 
390-513 (esp. 464-466) [& lit]: D. B. RED- 
FORD, New Light on the Asiatic Campaign- 
ing of Horemheb, BASOR 211 (1973) 36-49; 
N. SuupPAK, New Light on Shamgar ben 
‘Anath, Bibl 70 (1989) 517-525; M. S. 
Smitn, Anat’s Warfare Cannibalism and the 
West Semitic Ban, The Pitcher is Broken: 
Memorial Essays for G. W. Ahlström (JSOT 
Sup 190; eds. S. W. Holladay & L. K. 
Handy: Sheffield 1995) 368-386; K. VAN 
DER Toorn, Anat-Yahu, Some Other Dei- 
ties, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39 
(1992) 80-101; A. vaN SELMS, Judge Sham- 
gar, VT 14 (1964) 294-309; *N. H. WALLS, 
The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (Atlanta 
1992) [& lit]; M. WEINFELD, Kuntillet *Aj- 
rud [nscriptions and their Significance, SEL 
| (1984) 121-130. 


P. L. DAv 


ANCIENT OF DAYS 





ANCIENT OF DAYS 

I. In a throne vision with mythological 
traits, God is depicted as the ‘attig 
yóminlyómayyd', traditionally rendered as 
‘the Ancient of Days’ (Dan 7:9.13.22). The 
expression is to be interpreted as a construct 
chain expressing a genctivus partitivus. The 
basic meaning of the common Semitic root 
‘TQ is ‘to be advanced". The expression then 
can be rendered as ‘advanced in days’ im- 
plying that the deity was seen as one ‘far 
gone in years’ or ‘ancient of days’. The 
background of the imagery in Dan 7 has 
been looked for in Canaanite mythology 
(EMERTON 1958; CoLLiNs 1977; 1993); ina 
Mesopotamian text (KVANVIG 1988); and in 
contemporary Hellenistic/Egyptian mytho- 
logical patterns (VAN HENTEN 1993). The 
imagery of the Ancient of Days has influ- 
enced the throne visions in / Enoch. 

II. The struggle between Antiochus IV 
Epiphanes//‘the —Sea' and the ‘one like a 
—Son of Man' in Dan 7 has been inter- 
preted as a late rewriting of the mythic 
themes in the Ugaritic Baal-cycle in which 
the younger god -*Baal enpowered by the 
older >El defeats the inimical Yammu (Sea; 
c.g. EMERTON 1958; COLLINS 1993). Al- 
though this view does not go unchallenged 
(Fercn 1980) and although it provokes 
problems on the level of interpretation, it 
must be conceded that in the Uganitic texts 
El has some traits in common with the im- 
agery of the ‘Ancient of Days’. El is de- 
picted as venerably aged; the grey hair of 
his beard (3br dqn) is referred to (KTU 1.3 
v:2. 25; 1.4 v:4: 1.18 i:12 [restored]). More- 
over, he receives the epithet ab Snm, ‘father 
of the years’, by which he is portrayed as 
the oldest among the gods. A proto-sinaitic 
inscription has d tb, to be read as *zu 
Siba(ti), ‘the grey(-haired) one’, as an epi- 
thet of El, which is here probably a designa- 
tion of >Ptah (M. Duxstra, Semitic Wor- 
ship at Serabit el-Khadim (Sinai), ZAH 10 
[1997] 92-93). 

However, the rendition ‘father of the 
years’ for ab $nm read as *abu šanima has 
not remained unchallenged. This challenge 
is provoked by two different features. 1) The 


plural of the Ugaritic noun for ‘years’ is 
normally construed in the feminine šnt and 
not the masculine Sm, Therefore, scholars 
have been arguing for different interpreta- 
tions of the noun 3nm. J. REIDER (Etymol- 
ogical Studies in Biblical Hebrew, VT 4 
[1954] 283-284) and A. A. WIEDER (Three 
Philological Notes, Bulletin of the Institute 
of Jewish Studies 2 [1974] 108-109) pro- 
posed a translation *—Exalted Ones'. M. 
Pore (El in the Ugaritic Texts [VTSup 2; 
Leiden 1955] 34-36) suggested 'Father of 
the Eldest? which would indicate both the 
high age and the consequent weakness of El. 
2) §nm occurs as the second element in the 
binomial deity Tkmn-w-Snm, ->Thukamuna- 
wa--Shunama. H. GrsE (RAAM 97-98. 
193-104), A. JiRKu ($num (Schunama), der 
Sohn des Gottes "Il, ZAW 82 [1970] 278- 
279) and C. H. Gorpon (El, Father of 
Snm, JNES 35 [1976] 261-262; FERCH 
1980:82-83) read the expression ab 3nm as 
an epithet for El: ‘the father of Shunama'. 
Besides, J. AISTLEITNER (WUS Nr. 312) 
interprets šnm as “Die Bezeichnung der 
hochgelegenen himmlischen Wohnung Els”. 
These alternative interpretations, however, 
are not convincing: 1) The epithet ab snm 
occurs only in a formulaic sentence: “She/ 
He/They appeared in the encampment of El 
and entered the camp of the King, the Father 
of Years” (Baal-epic: KTU 1.1 iii:23-34; 1.2 
v:6; 1.3 v:7-8; 1.4 iv:23-24; 1.5 vi:l-2; 1.6 
1:35-36; Aghat: KTU 1.17 vi:48-49). 2) Al- 
though §nm is the regular plural for the 
feminine noun ‘year’, it should be noted that 
other nouns have variant plural-forms; e.g. 
ri§, ‘head is attested in the plural as rigt as 
well as ri§m (COLLINS 1993:127n. 25). 3) 
The deity Shunama occurs in Ugaritic texts 
only together with Thukamuna (D. PARDEE, 
Tukamuna wa Sunama, UF 20 [1988] 195- 
199). Although Shunama, together with 
Thukamuna, is presented as a son of El in 
the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.65:1-4; 1.114) and 
the deity Thukamuna-wa-Shanuma holds a 
relatively prominent position in the Ugaritic 
pantheon-lists (J. C. DE Moor, The Semitic 
Pantheon of Ugarit, UF 2 [1970] 215-216) it 
is not quite clear why the formulaic epithet 


ANGEL I 


ab §nm should refer to a deity not attested 
on its own in the mythological texts. 

KvaNviG (1988) has tried to relate el- 
ements of the throne vision in Dan 7 with a 
seventh century BCE Assyrian text: ‘The 
Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince’ 
(SAA III, No. 32) in which 15 deities are 
portrayed in hybrid forms. Although this 
might give some religio-historical back- 
ground to the vision of the four beasts, the 
depiction of God as ‘ancient of days’ is not 
elucidated by it, since in the Assyrian text 
an expression or epithet parallel to ‘attig 
yéminlyémayy@ cannot be found (COLLINS 
1993:128-131). 

Van HENTEN (1993) has related the im- 
agery of Dan 7 with contemporary Hel- 
lenistic-Egyptian material. He interprets the 
‘eleventh horn’ as referring to Antiochus IV 
Epiphanes and as a character framed on the 
model of -*Seth-—Typhon. As regards the 
designation ‘Ancient of Days’, VAN HENTEN 
(1993:227-228) refers to the fact that Zeus 
has been regarded as the “author of days 
and years" and that >Thot was venerated as 
“lord of time” and “lord of old age”. 

III. In the designation ‘Ancient of Days’ 
two traits of Gods are interwoven. The con- 
cept of God’s eternal existence (e.g. Ps 9:8; 
29:10; 90:2; sec also -*El-olam) expressed 
in epithets as "dbi 'àd, 'everlasting father’ 
(Isa 9:5) and melek ‘ôläm, ‘eternal king’ (Jer 
10:10). The notion of God as an old man 
popular in Hellenistic times (HARTMAN & 
DI LELLA 1978:217-218) may have traces in 
the OT (e.g. Job 36:26). 

In the throne vision of Dan 7 the Ancient 
of Days appears sitting at the head of the 
divine —Council. From the continuation of 
the vision it becomes clear that the Ancient 
of Days is identical with Yahweh, the God 
of Israel. He takes away the power from the 
fourth beast and empowers the one like a 
—Son of Man with 'dominion, glory and 
kingdom' in order to rule righteously over 
the Saints of the Most High. 

The designation *Ancient of Days' has 
influenced the imagery in the Similitudes of 
I Enoch. In various throne visions, God is 
depicted as ré’3a mawa‘él, ‘Head/Sum of 


45 


Days’ (J Enoch 46:1. 2; 47:3; 55:1; 60:2; 
71:10-14) who likewise will empower the 
forthcoming Son of Man with everlasting 
rule. 
IV. Bibliography 

J. J. Cotuins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the 
Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula 1977); 
Co.uins, Stirring up the Sea. The religio- 
historical Background of Daniel 7, The Book 
of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (A. 
S. van der Woude, ed.; BETL 106; Leuven 
1993) 121-136; J. A. EMERTON, The Origin 
of the Son of Man Imagery, JTS 9 (1958) 
225-242; A. J. FERCH, Daniel 7 and Ugarit: 
a Reconsideration, JBL 99 (1980) 75-86; L. 
F. HARTMAN & A. A. DI LELLA, The Book 
of Daniel (AB 23; Garden City 1978); J. W. 
VAN HENTEN, Antiochus IV as a Typhonic 
Figure in Daniel 7, The Book of Daniel in 
the Light of New Findings (A. S. van der 
Woude, ed.; BETL 106; Leuven 1993) 223- 
243, H. KvanviG, Roots of Apocalyptic 
(WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988); H. 
SCHMOLDT, ‘tq, TWAT 6 (1987) 487-489. 


B. BECKING 


ANGEL I RN 

I. The consonants L'K in the Semitic 
languages signify ‘send’, with a more fo- 
cused nuance in certain languages of 
specifically ‘send with a commission/mess- 
age’ (CUNCHILLOS 1982). The mém- prefix 
and a-vowels of Heb mal’ak conform gen- 
erally to what is expected for an instrumen- 
tal noun (magqtal) identifying the vehicle or 
tool by which the action of the verb is 
accomplished (in this case, the means by 
which a message is sent, hence 'messen- 
ger). Because the verb is not attested in 
Hebrew, some suspect that this noun is a 
loan word from another language. However, 
since the root is widely attested in the Sem- 
itic languages, and since even the verb is 
attested in north-west Semitic (Ugaritic), it 
is best to see the Hebrew noun as a relic of 
a once more generative root that otherwise 
disappeared in Hebrew because of a seman- 
tic overlap with a preferred and less specific 
term SLH ‘send’. 


ANGEL I 


The Bible characteristically uses mal’ak 
to designate a human messenger (e.g. 1 Sam 
11:4; 1 Kgs 19:2). A smaller number of the 
over 200 occurrences of the word in the OT 
refer to. God's supernatural emissaries. As 
God's envoys, they represent extensions of 
God's authority and activity, beings "mighty 
in strength, who perform His word" (Ps 
103:20). 

Supernatural messengers in other ancient 
Near Eastern cultures typically arc identified 
by the lexical item in that language also 
used to identify human messengers or subor- 
dinates sent on missions (Sum kin-gi,-a, 
sukkal; Akk mar šipri; Eg wpwty; Ug glm, 
mPak, Eth malak). There is therefore no 
specially reserved term to distinguish a class 
of such gods from other gods on the one 
hand or from human messengers on the 
other. This is in contrast to the English 
‘angel’, which is just such a specialized 
term qualitatively distinguishing God from 
his assistants, and a term which cannot be 
used of humans apart from metaphor (cf. the 
Vulgate’s consistent use of angelus for di- 
vine messengers in contrast to human mess- 
engers identified by the noun nuntius). It is 
possible that the proper name of one Meso- 
potamian messenger deity (Malak, CT 
XXIV 33.24-31) preserves the West Semitic 
noun as a loan word in Akkadian. 

IIl. The gods of the ancient Near East, 
like humans, communicated with each other 
over great distances by means of mess- 
engers. They were neither omniscient nor 
capable of immediately transporting them- 
selves from one location to another. Al- 
though the gods were privy to knowledge 
largely unavailable to humans (cf. 2 Sam 
14:20), they communicated and learned 
information about events and the cosmos in 
the same way humans did. Although many 
aspects of human communication find their 
counterpart in the divine realm, there are 
nevertheless several discontinuities (for data 
on generalizations below with respect to 
human messenger activity see MEIER 1988). 

Those gods who cluster near the upper 
echelons of the pantheon typically dispatch 
as their envoys a single messenger who is a 


46 


high official, often the sukkal in Mesopot- 
amia (a Sumerian term that early on could 
designate a position of intimacy and author- 
ity second only to one’s lord or mistress). 
Just as human messengers normally travelled 
alone unless there were special circum- 
stances, so in the Mesopotamian god lists, 
there is a tendency to identify one specific 
messenger (mār šipri) in the employ of a 
god who needs such a figure. This reflects 
the general pattem found in mythological 
texts as well, where a god typically sends a 
single, specific, lower-ranking messenger 
god. Nuska and Kakka are messenger gods 
who appear frequently in Mesopotamian 
sources, serving different masters. One does 
find exceptions where larger numbers of 
messenger gods are in the employ of high 
ranking gods (e.g. seven and even eighteen 
messenger deities are attested for a single 
god [CT XXIV 33.24-31]). The war or 
storm god is unusual in typically dispatching 
more than one messenger god on errands 
(cf. GINZBERG 1944), perhaps safety or 
strength in numbers being a concomitant of 
his more belligerent profile. 

The story of -*Nergal and Ereshkigal 
suggests that a messenger deity might have 
abilities or privileges unparalleled among 
the other gods. In that account, the boundary 
between the underworld and the upper realm 
of the gods could be described as safely 
bridged only by a messenger deity, as the 
gods articulate: “We cannot descend to you 
nor can you ascend to us” (Amarna version 
lines 4-5; in the Sultantepe version, the 
messengers bridge the distance by employ- 
ing a stairway connecting the two realms; 
cf. the rainbow as the path along which the 
Greek divine female messenger Iris travels). 
The perception of the privileged status of a 
messenger god in bridging the gap is com- 
parable to that of the Greek divine herald, 
~ Hermes, who as the god of communica- 
tion across boundaries is specifically asso- 
ciated with the boundary between the living 
and the -*dead. 

Some features of human messenger activ- 
ity are not duplicated in the divine realm. 
The provision of escorts for human mess- 


ANGEL I 


engers was a common courtesy, if not a 
necessity. for safe or trouble-free communi- 
cation. Passports and the circumvention of 
bureaucratic hurdles were persistent features 
of human communication. Provision for 
lodging and meals along an extended route 
was a necessity. None of these aspects of 
human communication reappears in depic- 
tions of divine messenger activity. 

HI. The translation of mal’ak by ‘angel’ 
in English Bibles obscures the ancient 
Israelite perception of the divine realm. 
Where English ‘angel’ is the undifferentiat- 
ing term for all of God's supernatural assist- 
ants, mal'àk originally could be applied only 
to those assistants whom God dispatched on 
missions as messengers. Thus, an carly 
Israelite from the period of the monarchy 
would probably not have identified the 
theriomorphic -cherubim and -*seraphim as 
mal'ákim ‘messengers’, for the frightful 
appearance of these creatures made them 
unlikely candidates to serve as -*'mediators 
of God's message to humans (and indeed, 
there is no record of their ever having done 
so in the Old Testament). Even the Greek 
word angelos meant at first simply ‘mess- 
enger’ (Angel II). It is only in later texts 
in the Old Testament, and everywhere in 
Apocryphal and NT texts, that the words 
mal'ák and angelos become generic terms 
for any of God's supernatural assistants, 
whether they functioned as messengers or 
not. When English borrowed the term 
"angel" from Greek, it was not in its carlier 
sense ‘messenger’ but in its later 
significance of any supernatural being under 
God's authority. 

Not all sections of the Bible describe di- 
vine messengers. In the D and P sections of 
the Pentateuch they are never mentioned, 
nor do they appear in most of the pre-exilic 
prophetic literature where prophets receive 
their messages directly from God. In texts 
where God speaks frequently and directly to 
humans, there is of course less need for a 
messenger to mediate God's message to 
humans. A tension is evident in the Bible 
between an earlier worldview evident in 
some texts where God speaks freely and 


47 


comfortably with humans, while in other 
later passages God prefers to send subordi- 
nate emissarics to deal with humankind. 

When God's messengers are portrayed in 
Narratives as primary actors interacting with 
other characters, they typically are presented 
as individuals who work alone. The most 
obvious example of this is the -angel of 
Yahweh. Only occasionally are supernatural 
messengers (mal’akim) identified in groups 
of two or more in the OT. God is assumed 
to have a numerous pool—at one place 
described as a "camp" (Gen 32:2-3[1-2])— 
of these figures at his behest who bless and 
praise him (Pss 103:20; 148:2), employ a 
ladder to travel between heaven and canh 
(Gen 28:12), protect from physical harm the 
traveller who trusts in God (Ps 91:11-12), 
and are as swift and inscrutable in the per- 
formance of their task as the wind (Ps 
104:4; both the masculine nrhy and femi- 
nine rw/rwt plural construct of this word for 
"wind, spiri become very common designa- 
tions for angels at Qumran). More than one 
messenger may appear where Yahweh's 
envoys enter hostile territory or confront ini- 
mical humans (Gen 19:1-22; Ps 78:49). 

A frequent role played by a messenger in 
the ancient Near East was to act as an escort 
to individuals who were travelling under the 
protection of the sender. Similarly, a divine 
messenger despatched by God accompanies 
humans on their travels to protect them en 
route in order to bring them safely to jour- 
ney’s end and the accomplishment of their 
tasks (Gen 24:7.40; Exod 14:19; 23:20-23; 
32:34; 33:2; Tob 5:21), even providing food 
and drink for the traveller (1 Kgs 19:5-6). 
The later angelic protection of God's people 
in any context can be perceived as an exten- 
sion of this original messenger task (Dan 
3:28; 6:23[22]: Bar 6:6 [2 Ep Jer 6]). 

It is important to distinguish this protec- 
tion en route from the custom of dispatching 
messengers in advance of distinguished 
travellers in order to inform their future 
hosts of their soon arrival. The Mari ar- 
chives in particular point to an elaborate 
system of advance notification of arrivals 
and departures of significant travellers with- 


ANGEL I 


in a kingdom’s territory. This aspect of 
messenger activity is not reproduced fre- 
quently in the divine realm, but it is found 
in a highly charged eschatological context 
that becomes the object of frequent attention 
in Judaism and Christianity: God sends his 
messenger in advance "to prepare a way 
before me" (Mal 3:1; cf. David b. Kimchi). 

The primary burden of the messenger in 
the ancient Near East was not the verbatim 
delivery of a memorized message but the 
diplomatically nuanced explication of the 
sendér's intent. It is appropriate, then, for a 
supernatural messenger from God not only 
to give messages from God to humans (1 
Kgs"13:18; Zech 1:14), and even to other 
divine messengers (Zech 2:7-8[1:3-4]), but 
also to entertain questions from humans and 
explain perplexing features of messages 
from God (Zech 1:9; 2:2[1:19]; 4:1-6; 5:5- 
11; 6:4-5). This interpretative and her- 
meneutical role (the latter adjective derived 
from Hermes, the Greek divine herald who 
played a similar role) also accounts for the 
mediatorial function that divine messengers 
fulfilled in representing humans before God 
(Job 33:23-24, Tob 12:15): in the same way 
that human messengers completed their task 
by bringing the response of the addressee 
back to the sender, so God’s messengers 
were responsible for bringing back and 
explicating the response of the humans to 
whom they were dispatched. 

Human messengers were often respon- 
sible for the collection of debts and fines, 
and in general the satisfaction of outstanding 
obligations owed to their senders. When an 
obligation was not satisfied, appropriate 
measures were taken to enforce payment 
and punish the offender. God's supernatural 
messengers can function in a similar capac- 
ity, appearing in a combative and bellicose 
role vis-à-vis those who resist or rebel 
against God (Gen 32:25-29[24-28]; Hos 
12:4; Ps 78:49; sce — Destroyer). 

Messengers were typically given provi- 
sions by the hosts to whom they were sent, 
and indeed Genesis 18 depicts God's mess- 
engers eating and drinking with humans. 
But other traditions insist that this is only 


48 


apparent and not real (Pal. Tgs. Gen 18:8, 
“It seemed to him as if they were eating"), 
for divine messengers do not eat or drink 
terrestrial fare ("I did not eat or drink, but 
you saw a vision", Tob 12:19; cf. Judg 
13:16; b. Yoma 75b). It is unconscionable 
for a messenger to refuse a friendly host's 
offer of food among humans, but the seem- 
ingly brusk behaviour of God's messengers 
in this regard may be tolerated in consider- 
ation of the fact that the food they are 
accustomed to is of a higher quality, more 
like manna (Ps 78:25; Wis 16:20; 4 Ezra 
1:19 see F. SiEGERT, Kónnen Engel essen?, 
in his Drei hellenistisch-jildische Predigten 
II [Tubingen 1992) 253-255). 

A divine messenger dispatched by God 
has considerable authority and is to be 
obeyed as the representative of God that he 
is (Exod 23:20-22). This should not be 
taken, however, to imply that God's mess- 
engers were cast of the same moral rectitude 
and deserved the same trust as God himself. 
As humans invariably had problems with the 
veracity of their messengers, so divine mess- 
engers could not always be trusted to tell the 
truth or to reveal the entire purpose of their 
errands. God does not trust his own mess- 
engers (Job 4:18), and there are accounts of 
prevaricating and misleading messengers 
sent by God (1 Kgs 22:19-23; 2 Kgs 19:7; 
cf. 1 Kgs 13:18). Even Paul anticipates this 
possibility (Gal 1:8). 

Divine messengers are usually depicted 
as indistinguishable from human beings 
(Heb 13:2; Gen 19:1-22; 32:25-31[24-30]; 
Dan 8:15; Tob 5:8.16; Luke 24:4; cf. Judg 
13:3-23), while it is in the later books of the 
OT that they are depicted in overwhelming- 
ly supernatural terms (Dan 10:6). Therefore, 
since humans could also be perceived as 
messengers sent from God—notably 
prophets (Hag 1:13), priests (Mal 2:7), and 
kings (1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17.20; 19: 
28[27])—the use of the same term mal’ak to 
identify both human and supernatural mess- 
engers results in some passages where it is 
unclear which of the two is intended if no 
further details are provided (Judg 2:1-5; 
5:23; Mal 3:1; Eccl. 5:5). 


ANGEL I 


It is frequently asserted that messengers, 
when delivering their messages, often did 
not distinguish between themselves and the 
one who sent them. lt is true that mess- 
engers do speak in the first person as if they 
were the sender of the message. but it is 
crucial to note that such speech, in un- 
equivocal messenger contexts, is always pre- 
ceded by a prefatory comment along the 
lines of “PN [the sender] said to you” after 
which the message is provided; thus, a 
messenger always clearly identifies the 
words of the one who sent the message. A 
messenger would subvert the communica- 
tion process were he or she to fail to ident- 
ify the one who sent the messenger on his or 
her mission. In texts that are sufficiently 
well preserved, there is never a question as 
to who is speaking, whether it be the mess- 
enger or the one who sent the messenger 
(MEIER 1992). 

There is therefore no evidence for the fre- 
quently made assertion that messengers need 
not make any distinction between them- 
selves and the ones who sent them. In its 
extreme form, this argument will even claim 
that messengers could be called by the 
names of the ones who sent them (cf. David 
b. Kimchi on Zech 3:2). The only contexts 
in biblical and ancient Near Eastern litera- 
ture where no distinction seems to be made 
between sender and messenger occur in the 
case of the -*"angel (literally "messenger") 
of Yahweh” (maľak YHWH). it is precisely 
the lack of differentiation that occurs with 
this figure, and this figure alone among 
messengers, that raises the question as to 
whether this is even a messenger of God at 
all. Some see it as originally Yahweh him- 
self, modified through the insertion of the 
word maľäāk into the text in order to distan- 
ce God from interacting with humans (possi- 
ble motivations including a reticence to 
associate God with certain activities, or a 
developing tendency toward God’s transcen- 
dence). It must be underscored that the 
angel of YHWH in these perplexing biblical 
narratives does not behave like any other 
messenger known in the divine or human 
realm. Although the term ‘messenger’ is 


49 


present, the narrative itself omits the indis- 
pensable features of messenger activity and 
presents instead the activities which one 
associates with Yahweh or the other gods of 
the ancient Near East. "We can, omitting the 
word mal’ak, find in the J and E messenger 
stories exactly the same motifs and the same 
literary pattems as are common in all 
ancient Near Eastem literature” pertaining to 
the gods themselves, not their messengers 
(Irvin 1978:103). 

Some features of divine messenger activ- 
ity elsewhere in the ancient Near East are 
not duplicated in Isracl’s religion by the 
very nature of Isracl’s monotheism. Enlil, 
for example, sends his envoy Nuska to 
negotiate a marriage for Enlil in the story of 
Enlil and Sud, a task in which human mess- 
engers are frequently attested (cf. Genesis 
24). Since God has no spouse (apart from 
his metaphorical bride Israel), he needs no 
messengers to arrange his nuptials. The 
angel who assists Tobit in overcoming the 
dangers of his marriage is a completely dif- 
ferent matter, a function of the envoy who 
assists God's people in their endeavours 
(Tob 6:15-17). 

IV. In literature written after the Old 
Testament, including the Apocrypha and 
New Testament, the functions typical of 
messengers continue to apply to what are 
now better termed in English as “angels”. 
Thus, angels continue to serve as protectors 
to those who travel (T. Jud. 3:10), to relay 
and interpret God's messages to humans (2 
Bar 55:3-56:56), or to requite disobedience 
to God (Acts 12:23). However, in this later 
literature, which continues to use the same 
messenger vocabulary (mal"àk, angelos), the 
role of messenger per se becomes less 
significant than the exalted, supernatural 
status of the marvelous being who now 
communicates God's message to humans. 
As a result, there is usually no problem in 
the later literature in distinguishing an angel 
from a human being, for the former's ap- 
pearance is often quite awe-inspiring and 
frightening (e.g. Matt 28:3), and these later 
angels are carefully categorized according to 
an intricately complex hierarchy hardly 


ANGEL II 


detectable in the Old Testament. The reti- 
cence in the Old Testament to provide di- 
vine messengers with personal names is also 
abandoned in post-biblical literature, which 
even returns to the laconic biblical texts and 
supplies them with the names they originally 
lacked (e.g. Zagnugael in Tg. Ps.-J. Exod 
3:2; see OLYAN 1993). 

In Semitic texts, the word mal’ak, there- 
fore, broadens its original significance of 
“messenger” and tends to become the word 
of choice to designate all supematural 
beings who do God's work. If it applies to 
supernatural creatures opposed to God, it 
usually is qualified by an adjective such as 
"evil". Mandacan gnostic texts are a note- 
worthy exception, employing the word 
mal'ák not to describe good angelic-type 
beings (for which they instead employ the 
term *uthra) but instead the genii of sorcery 
or -*evil spirits. 

V. Bibliography 
H. BigrENHARD, Die Himmlische Welt im 
Urchristentum und Spátjudentum (Tübingen 
1951); P. Bonescii, Is malak an Arabic 
Word?, JAOS 65 (1945) 107-111; J.-L. Cun- 
CHILLOS, La'ika, mal'à et Melà'kàh en 
sémitique nord-occidental, RSF 10 (1982) 
153-160; H. L. GiNzBERG, Baal's Two 
Messengers, BASOR 95 (1944) 25-30; D. 
InviN, Mytharion. The Comparison of Tales 
from the Old Testament and the Ancient 
Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978); S. 
Meter, The Messenger in the Ancient Semi- 
tic World (HSM 45; Atlanta 1988); MEIER, 
Speaking of Speaking. Marking Direct Dis- 
course in the Hebrew Bible (Leiden 1992) 
277-291; S. M. OLYAN, A Thousand Thou- 
sands Served Him. Exegesis and the Naming 
of Angels in Ancient Judaism (Tübingen 
19935; A. Ror£, The Belief in Angels in 
Ancient Israel (Jerusalem 1979); P. SCHAF- 
ER, Rivalitdt zwischen Engeln und Men- 
schen. Untersuchungen zur rabbinischen 
Engelvorstellung (Studia Judaica 8; Berlin 
1975). 


S. A. MEIER 


50 


ANGEL II àyyeAoc 

I. Angelos ("messenger Vg and VL 
angelus) is in Greek, Early Jewish and 
Christian literature the most common 
designation of an otherworldly being who 
mediates between —^God and humans. In 
LXX the word is usually the translation of 
maak. It occurs 175 times in NT (accord- 
ing to the editions of Nestlc-Aland?$ and the 
Greek New Testament, including Luke 
22:43, which is often considered as a later 
addition). It is used sometimes of human 
messengers (e.g. Jdt 1:11; in the NT Luke 
7:24; 9:52; Jas 2:25, and the OT quotation 
referring to John the Baptist in Mark 1:2-3 
and parallels). The most detailed ‘angel- 
ology’ in the NT is found in Rev (67 occur- 
rences of angelos). 

II. Angels are self-evident figures in 
Early Jewish and Christian literature, al- 
though not all Jewish groups accepted their 
existence (see Acts 23:8 concerning the Sad- 
ducces). OT conceptions of the Mal’ak 
Yhwh (-Angel of Yahweh) and the divine 
-council underlie the early Jewish and 
Christian ideas (MACH 1992), but pagan 
influences should be taken into account too. 
The etymology of angelos is not clear. The 
word originated somehow from the East (cf. 
&yyapog "mounted courier" in Persia). The 
connection with Sanskrit ángiras is based on 
the assumption that this name refers to 
- mediators between gods and men and is 
not certain (H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymo- 
logisches Wörterbuch 1 [Heidelberg 1960] 
7-8). To a certain extent angels could corre- 
spond to the demons in Greek religion (cf. 
Philo, Gigant. 6; 16; -*Demon). The Greeks 
were familiar with messengers from the 
gods since the archaic period, as appears 
from the /liad and Odyssey where birds 
bring divine messages to humans (il. 
24:292, 315) and Hermes acts as the 
angelos of the gods (Od. 5:29). For most of 
the appearances and functions of angels 
pagan parallels can be found, and in some 
cases the absorption of pagan conceptions is 
quite probable. This does apply already to 
older ideas like the heavenly army of 
YHWH (Josh 5:14, -*Yahweh zebaoth) and 


ANGEL II 





the ~sons of the gods (Béné élim/éléhim), 
which have parallels in North West Semitic 
mythology (MULLEN 1980); it is certainly 
also true for the Hellenistic period with its 
intensive cultural exchange. The traditions 
concerning (mounted) angels in 2 Macca- 
bees are connected with the common motif 
of the epiphaneia of the patron god of the 
temple (2 Macc 2:21; 3:24), who protects 
his temple by causing natural phenomena or 
by sending his messengers. In the descrip- 
tion of the rescue of the sanctuary of Delphi 
from the Gauls in 279 BCE by Pausanias the 
heroes Hyperochus, Laodocus, Pyrrhus and 
Phylacus appear in this role (10.23.1-2). The 
angels who assist the Jews on the battlefield 
(e.g. 2 Mace 10:29-31) correspond to pagan 
supernatural helpers like the -Dioskouroi. 
Compare also the guardian angels with cer- 
tain Mesopotamian gods (A. FiNET 1989:37- 
52), the fiery appearance of angels and di- 
vine messengers in North West Semitic texts 
(M. S. Smitu, Biblical and Canaanite Notes 
to the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice From 
Qumran, RQ 12 [1985-1987] 585-588), and 
angels as companions of the soul (psycho- 
pompos) after death (e.g. T. Job 52; cf. Luke 
16:22; sec Demon, and ->Hermes). 

From the third century BCE onward the 
appearances of angels increase, their mani- 
festations are described more extensively 
and their functions diverge more and more 
(see for instance / Enoch, Tob, Dan, Jub., 2 
Macc). This development should not be 
explained by the coming into being of 
apocalyptic literature only (cf. MICHL 1962: 
64: “Dabei ist es die mit dem Buche Daniel 
aufkommende Apokalyptik, die den frucht- 
barsten Boden für diese Entwicklung bie- 
tet"; also MAcH 1992:115), but also by the 
assimilation of popular ideas (see e.g. Tob) 


and the absorption of pagan conceptions, 


(e.g. Jos. and As. and 2 Macc, MACH 1992: 
242-249 and 265-278). In LXX ayyeAog-ot 
can be an interpretative translation of 
Hebrew or Aramaic expressions conceming 
sons of God or members of the divine coun- 
cil (e.g. LXX Job 2:1 for Béné 'élóhim; 
LXX Dan 3:92 opoimpa ayyéAov @eov for 
3:25 MT PONTIS 107; Theodotion dif- 


51 


ferently); LXX Dan 4:13.23 for Opi Ty 
Dan 4:10.20 MT (-*Watcher). According to 
Maci (1992:65-113) the translators tried to 
avoid references to a (polytheistic) concep- 
tion of scveral figures acting as gods/sons of 
God and to relate certain actions which were 
ascribed to God in MT rather to angels, 
because it was not appropriate for God to do 
these things (esp. LXX Job). 

III. In Early Jewish and Christian litera- 
ture thc angelic messenger of the Lord is 
very common (angelos kyrioultheou). He 
appears on earth (e.g. -*Gabricl in Luke 1-2) 
or manifests himself in a dream (Matt 1:20; 
2:13.19) to bring a message from God or to 
help people (e.g. Acts 5:19). -*Raphael 
accompanies Tobias (Tob 5:4-12:22) and 
helps him to get rid of the demon who 
caused the death of the earlier husbands of 
his bride Sarah (8:2-3). As a consequence of 
the fusion of the conceptions of the mess- 
enger of the Lord and the divine council, 
angels usually reside in heaven, i.e. near the 
throne of God (Rev 5:2.11), where they 
worship and praise him. The saying of 
-»Jesus that the risen will live like angels in 
heaven (Mark 12:25 and parallels) can be 
connected to sources which refer to a 
coming community of humans and angels or 
a transformation to angels or stars (e.g. / 
Enoch 39:4-5; 71:11; 104:6; 4 Ezra 7:85. 
95; in Qumran texts a common worship by 
humans and angels can be realized also in 
the present). Angels move forward in the 
air, but are rarely represented with wings (/ 
Enoch 61:1 according to some manuscripts). 
The angel of the Lord transports Habakkuk 
in one day from Judah to Babylon and back 
by carrying him by his hair to bring Daniel 
a meal in the lion-pit (Bel 33-39; cf. Ezek 
8:3). Angels often resemble humans (Dan 
8:15; 10:18; Jos. As. 14:3) and can have a 
shining or fiery appearance (Dan 10:5-6). 

Angels engage in a variety of activities. 
They act as intermediaries for the revelation 
of the ->Torah (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19), reveal 
divine knowledge and explain revelations 
(Zech 1:9; 4:5-6; Dan 8:16; 4QSerekh Shirot 
*Olat ha-Shabbat [Newsom 1985]; -*Uriel 
in 4 Ezra). The angel of the Lord gives the 


ANGEL II 


spirit of understanding to —Daniel (LXX 
Sus 44-45). The angel of Jesus reveals to 
John’s hearers his testimony for the 
churches (Rev 22:16). The heavenly visitor 
(7*Michael) mentions the angel Metanoia as 
his sister to Asencth after her confession 
(Jos. As. 15:7-8). Metanoia is a daughter of 
the Most High (STROTMANN 1991) and will 
intercede for Asencth and all who repent in 
the name of the Most High (cf. Phanuel as 
angel of repentance in / Enoch 40:9, and the 
anonymous angel of repentance in Hermas, 
Vis. 5:8; Clemens Alexandrinus, Quis dives 
42:18; Test. Gad 5:7-8 and the personi- 
fication of metanoia in pagan texts, e.g. 
Tabula Cebetis 10-11). Angels bring death 
to the enemy and godless people (-*Angel 
of Yahweh) according to 2 Kgdms 19:35 
(parallels Isa 37:36 and 2 Chr 32:21; remi- 
niscences in 1 Macc 7:41; 2 Macc 15:22-23; 
Sir 48:21; Josephus, Bell. 5:388; cf. Exod 
12:23; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:12.15; Sus 
55; 59 and LXX Sus 62; Acts 12:23 and 
LXX Job 33:23 aggeloi thanatéphoroi 
[GAMMIE 1985]). Similar functions are men- 
tioned in an eschatological context: angels 
are witnesses of the events on carth and 
write down the acts of men in the heavenly 
books (/ Enoch 89:62-64). They take part in 
the final judgement, intercede on behalf of 
the faithful, bring charges against the god- 
less and execute the sentence (cf. the seven 
angels with the final plagues in Rev 15-17; 
21:9 and the angel of the abyss —Apollyón 
or —^Abaddón in Rev 9:11: 20:1). 

As far as names of angels are concerned 
in biblical literature only, the names of 
Gabriel (Dan 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:26), 
Michael (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Rev 12:7), 
Abaddóm/ Apollyón and Beliar (2 Cor 6:15; 
Belial) occur. In Tob 5-12 Raphael 
Azarias already appears. Several Jewish and 
Christian extra-canonical writings contain 
numerous names of angels (e.g. / Enoch 
and Jub.; sce further Enoch for Metatron, 
—Melchizedek and the overview by MICHL 
1962:200-254; OLYAN 1993). Several cat- 
egories of angels are (later) connected with 
the heavenly court; some of them guard the 
heavenly throne of God: -*Seraphim, 


—>Cherubim, Ophannim, Zebaoth, Béné 
Elohim, —>Saints and — Watchers, Further 
groups of four, six or seven higher angels 
(-*Archangel) occur. The angels of the 
nations appear e.g. in 4QDeut 32:8-9 and 
LXX Deut 32:8-9, Jub. 15:31-32, 7 Enoch 
89:59; 90:22.25 and Dan 10:20-21; 12:1 
(Michacl). Other groups of angels perform- 
ing the same duty are the angels of death 
and those who accompany the Son of Man 
at his second coming (e.g. Matt 13:41; 
16:27; 24:31 and 25:31 (cf. 2 Thess 1:7; 
—Son of Man). ->Satan has his own angels 
(cf. 2 Cor 12:7) waging war with Michael 
and his angels (Rev 12:7). The fall from 
heaven of Satan (-*Dragon) and his angels 
in Rev 12:7-9 (cf. John 12:31), which causes 
the suffering of the people of God in the 
final period of history might be an adapta- 
tion of the idea of the fall of certain angels 
(^Giants) in primaeval time (Gen 6; / 
Enoch 6-11). 
IV. Bibliography 

J. H. CHARLESWORTH, The Portrayal of the 
Righteous as an Angel, Ideal Figures in 
Ancient Judaism. Profiles and Paradigms 
(SBLSCS 12; eds. J. J. Collins & G. W. E. 
Nickelsburg; Chico 1980) 135-151; F. 
CuMONT, Les anges du paganisme, RHR 72 
(1915) 159-182; M. J. DAVIDSON, Angels at 
Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 
1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from 
Qumran (JSP SS 11; Sheffield 1992) [& lit]; 
J. DiLLoN & D. WiNsrON, Philo's Doctrine 
of Angels, Two Treatises of Philo of Alexan- 
dria. A Commentary on De Gigantibus and 
Quod Deus Sit Immutabilis (BJS 25; Chico 
1983) 197-205; A. FINET, Anges et démons. 
Actes du Colloque de Liège et de Louvain- 
La-Neuve 25-26 novembre 1987 (ed. J. 
Ries; Louvain-La-Neuve 1989) 37-52; J. G. 
GAMMIE, The Angelology and Demonology 
in the Septuagint of the Book of Job, HUCA 
56 (1985) 1-19; *M. MacH, Entwicklungs- 
stadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in vor- 
rabbinischer Zeit (TSAJ 34; Tübingen 1992) 
[& lit; *J. Micur, Engel (I-IX), RAC 5 
(Stuttgart 1962) 53-258; E. T. MULLEN, The 
Divine Council in Canaanite and Early 
Hebrew Literature (HSM 24; Chico 1980); 


52 


ANGEL OF DEATH — ANGEL OF YAHWEH 


C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: 
A Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985), 
esp. 23-38 and 77-78; Newsom, He Has 
Established for Himself Priests:, Human and 
Angelic Priesthood in the Qumran Sabbath 
Shirot, Archaeology and History in the 
Dead Sea Scrolls (JSP SS 8; ed. L. H. 
Schiffman; Shefficld 1990) 101-120; S. M. 
OLYAN, A Thousand Thousands Served Him. 
Exegesis and the Naming of Angels in 
Ancient Judaism (Tübingen 1993); A. RoFE, 
The Belief in Angels in Israel in the First 
Temple Period in the Light of the Biblical 
Traditions (Jerusalem 1969) [Hebrew]; C. 
ROWLAND, The Open Heaven. A Study of 
Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christian- 
ity (London 1982) 78-123; C. ROWLAND, A 
Man Clothed in Linen. Daniel 10.6ff. and 
Jewish Angelology, JSNT 24 (1985) 99-110; 
P. SCHÄFER, Rivalität zwischen Engeln und 
Menschen. Untersuchungen zur rabbini- 
schen Engelvorstellung (SJLA 8; Berlin/ 
New York 1975); E. Scuick. Die Botschaft 
der Engel im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart 
1940; Bascl? 1946); A. R. R. SHEPPARD, 
Pagan Cults of Angels in Roman Asia 
Minor, Talanta 12-13 (1980-1981) 77-101; 
A. SHINAN, The Angelology of the “Pales- 
tinian" Targums on the Pentateuch, Sefarad 
43 (1983) 181-198; A. STROTMANN, "Mein 
Vater bist Du!" (Sir 51,10). Zur Bedeutung 
der Vaterschaft Gottes in kanonischen und 
nichtkanonischen — frühjüdischen Schriften 
(Frankfurt 1991) 271-276; G. A. G. 
STROUMSA, Another Seed: Studies in 
Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden 1984); 
D. W. Suter, Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: 
The Problem of Family Purity in 1 Enoch 6- 
16, HUCA 50 (1979) 115-135; M. ZIEGLER, 
Engel und Dämon im Lichte der Bibel mit 
EinschluB des ausserkanonischen Schrift- 
tums (Zürich 1957). 


J. W. vAN HENTEN 
ANGEL OF DEATH ~> ANGEL 
ANGEL OF YAHWEH nM GNUR 


I. The word - ‘angel’ in this phrase is 
literally ‘messenger’. The juxtaposition of 


53 


the common noun “messenger” with a 
following divine name in a genitive con- 
struction signifying a relationship of subor- 
dination is attested elsewhere in the ancient 
Near East (e.g. mlak ym, KTU 1.2; mdr Sipri 
ša DN, cf. CAD M/1 265). However, most 
of the appearances in the Bible of the phrase 
maľak YHWH are not easily explicable by 
recourse to Near Eastern paradigms, for the 
maľak YHWH in the Bible presents a num- 
ber of unique problems. 

H. [t is typical for gods in the ancient 
Near East to have at their disposal specific, 
lower-ranking deities who do their bidding 
in running errands and relaying messages. 
These messenger deities function primarily 
as links between gods and not between gods 
and humans; when a major god wishes to 
communicate with a human, he or she can 
be expected to make a personal appearance. 
When supernatural messengers are named at 
Ugarit, those of -*Baal are characteristically 
Gapnu (-Vinc) and Ugaru, while Qadish 
and Amrar serve Athirat (—Asherah). 
Papsukkal is a typical envoy of the high 
gods in Sumerian texts, and in Akkadian 
texts Kakka or Nuska is the messenger of 
their choice. In Greece, -*Hermes is the 
messenger and herald par excellence, with a 
female counterpart in Iris. These deities all 
behave in a fashion similar to their human 
counterparts who function as messengers on 
earth for all humans, from royalty to com- 
moners. 

It is precisely these features of ancient 
Near Eastern messenger gods that make 
analysis of the malak YHWH so vexing, for 
these features do not always characterize the 
latter. In contrast to the messenger deities of 
the ancient Near East, the mal’ak YHWH is 
never given a name in the OT, and he does 
not always behave like a human messenger. 
Because the OT is reluctant to provide 
names for God's angels (angels arc given 
proper names only in Daniel 8-12; cf. Gen 
32:29; Judg 13:17-18), there is no onomastic 
evidence from within the Bible to determine 
if Yahweh, like other deities in the ancient 
Near East, prefers dispatching a particular 
supernatural being on missions. Further- 


ANGEL OF YAHWEH 


more, although in many early narratives 
Yahweh himself appears to humans (just 
like other ancient Near Eastern deities), in 
later texts there is a marked preference for 
Yahweh to send a messenger in his place. 

HI. The phrase mal’ak YHWH (where 
mal'ák is singular) is not uniformly distrib- 
uted in the Bible. It can refer to a human 
messenger sent by -*God (priest and prophet 
respectively in Mal 2:7 and Hag 1:13; cf. 
what may be a personal name “Malachi” 
meaning “my messenger” in Mal 1:1; cf. 
however, LXX Maìayiaç ‘Messenger of 
Yahweh’). Elsewhere, the phrase is either 
unclear or certainly supernatural in its orien- 
tation. The single book with the most ap- 
pearances of the phrase is Judges (2:1.4; 
5:23; 6:11-22; 13:3-21). It appears in only 
two psalms which are contiguous (34:8; 
35:5.6), four contexts in the Pentateuch 
(Gen 16:7-11; 22:11.15; Exod 3:2; Num 
22:22-35), one passage in the books of 
Samuel and Chronicles (2 Sam 24:16 // 1 
Chr 21:12-30), and three contexts in the 
books of Kings (1 Kgs 19:7; 2 Kgs 1:3.15; 
19:35). In the prophets the single occurrence 
in Isaiah (37:36) is a passage parallel to onc 
already mentioned in 2 Kings (19:35), and 
apart from a single reference in Hosea 
(12:5) it is confined to Zechariah (Zech 1:11 
bis; 3:1-6; 12:8). 

Since the Hebrew definite article cannot 
be employed in the construct when the 
nomen rectum is a proper name, and since 
not all construct phrases with a proper name 
are to be construed as definite (ZBHS 13.4c; 
HirTH 1975:25-26), a problem of specificity 
` arises that can be seen by contrasting two 
recent Bible translations: the New Jewish 
Publication Society typically translates 
maľak YHWH when it first appears in a nar- 
rative as “an angel of the Lord” where the 
New Revised Standard Version translates 
“the angel of the Lord”. If the tatter transla- 
tion is more accurate, then another problem 
arises: is this figure a unique envoy who is 
always sent by God, or can a number of dif- 
ferent supernatural beings be dispatched as 
“the angel of Yahweh”? In other words, is 
the phrase “angel of Yahweh” a description 


54 


of an office held by different creatures, or is 
the phrase a title borne by only one unique 
figure? 

Because Greek, like English, usually 
must distinguish definite from indefinite in 
genitive constructions (unlike Hebrew and 
Latin), early evidence from Greek is invalu- 
able in discerning how the Bible’s earliest 
accessible interpreters understood the 
phrase. The NT knows of no single “The 
angel of the Lord/God", for the definite ar- 
ticle never appears when a figure identified 
by this phrase makes its first appearance—it 
is always “an angel of the Lord" (Matt 1:20; 
2:13.19; 28:2; Luke 1:11; 2:9; John 5:4; 
Acts 5:19; 8:26; 10:3 [“of God"]; 12:7.23; 
Gal 4:14). The Septuagint generally follows 
suit in translating mal’ak YHWH in the OT, 
although there are a few exceptional cases 
where the definite article appears when the 
figure first appears in a narrative (Num 
22:23; Jud 5:23 [LXX cod. A]; 2 Sam 
24:16; contrast the far more numerous cases 
where LXX presents the figure as indefinite: 
Gen 16:7; 22:11.15: Exod 3:2; 4:24 [LXX]; 
Judg 2:1; 5:23 [LXX cod. B]: 6:11.12 [LXX 
Cod. A].22a22b [LXX Cod. B]: 13:3.6.16b. 
21b: 2 Kgs 1:3.15; 19:35 [// Isa 37:36]; 1 
Chr 21:12; Zech 3:1; 12:8). 

Parallel passages within the MT support 
the early perception of a figure which was 
not definite: 2 Chr 32:21 rephrases the 
"angel of Yahweh" of 2 Kgs 19:35 to read 
simply “an angel". Even within a single pas- 
sage, “an angel” (indefinite) will first be 
introduced only later to be reidentified as 
mal'ak YHWH (1 Kgs 19:5-7; | Chr 21:15- 
16); this sequence confirms that the latter 
phrase in these contexts means no more than 
simply an angel of no particular significance 
sent from Yahweh. Extra-biblical Jewish 
literature presents the “angel of Yahweh” as 
a designation applicable to any number of 
different angels (STIER 1934:42-48). Other 
early witnesses who are forced to make a 
choice in this regard will be noted below, 
and their overwhelming consensus is that 
the phrase is to be translated as indefinite. 

When one scrutinizes the OT itself, a 
major obstacle for analysis lies in the many 


ANGEL OF YAHWEH 


passages that are textually problematic. Few 
generalizations can be made about all the 
passages, and each must be discussed on its 
own terms. If one can trust the evidence of 
early translations such as the LXX, Vulgate, 
and Syriac, these translations presume a 
Vorlage that is often at variance with the 
Hebrew text in its description of this figure. 
This obstacle seems to be related to a fur- 
ther problem that resists an easy solution, 
namely, the figure of the mal’ak YHWH is 
often perplexingly and inconsistently ident- 
ified with Yahweh himself. One or both of 
these difficulties can be found in the follow- 
ing ten passages: the phrase “messenger of 
Yahweh” appears six times in Judg 6:11-23 
to identify a figure who is also described as 
a "messenger of God" (v 20) and as 
Yahweh (vv 14.16). The LXX and Pscudo- 
Philo (35:1-7) level all descriptions so that 
everywhere he is called "messenger/angel of 
Yahweh” (even in vv 14.16. 20). Josephus 
recounts this event about “a spectre (phan- 
tasmatos) in the form of a young man” (Ant. 
V.213-14). The figure speaks but never 
claims to have been sent from Yahweh nor 
to be speaking words that another gave him. 
At only one point does he possibly refer to 
Yahweh as distinct from himself, but as a 
grecting the statement may be purely con- 
ventional (“Yahweh is with you”, v 12). He 
seems to have sufficient authority in his own 
right, never claiming it is grounded in an- 
other: “Have not I sent you?” (v 14) and “I 
will be with you" (v 16) are most comfort- 
able as statements coming from God's 
mouth, but the mal’ak speaks these himself. 
He works wonders in touching meat with his 
staff, causing it to be consumed with fire, 
after which he vanishes (v 21). The final 
reference to Yahweh who verbally comforts 
Gideon after the disappearance of the mal’ak 
is disorienting, for it raises the question why 
the mal’ak was ever sent at all if Yahweh 
can speak this easily to Gideon (v 23). 

In Judg 13:3-23, the figure in question is 
identified in the MT by a number of differ- 
ent designations in the first part of the story 
where he is “the man” (vv 10-11), “the man 
of God" who seemed to be a mal’ak of God 


55 


(v 6) sent by YHWH (v 8), and who actual- 
ly was a mal’ak of God (v 9). In the second 
part of the story (as well as the very first 
reference in the story) he is identified as 
maľak YHWH (vv. 13.15.16bis.17.18.20. 
21bis), until the final allusion where he is 
called ?élóhím (v 22). The LXX once inserts 
an additional reference to simply “the mess- 
enger" (v 11). Josephus' summary of this 
account (Ant. V.277-84) speaks of "a spectre 
(phantasma), an angel of God in the like- 
ness of a comely and tall youth”. Pseudo- 
Philo 42:3-10 unambiguously portrays an 
“angel of Yahweh” with the name Fadahel. 
The mal’ak refuses an hospitable offer of 
food, recommending instead that an offering 
be made to Yahweh (v 16). This mal'ák 
talks about God as someone distinct from 
himself (v 5), but never refers to the fact 
that he has been sent from God, nor that the 
words he speaks come from God. Indeed, it 
is not God's word that is to be heeded, but 
“Let her take heed to all that I said” (v 13), 
and “Take heed to all that I commanded 
her” (v 14). He is reluctant to identify him- 
self by name, describing his name as “full of 
wonder” (v 18). It is not clear if it is Yah- 
weh or the mal’ak who performed wonders 
in v 19 while Manoah and his wife looked 
on. The mal’ak ascends to heaven with the 
flame from the sacrifice (v 20). 

In Numbers 22:22-35, Yahweh himself is 
active (opening a donkey’s mouth and 
Balaam's eyes) in the midst of an extended 
description of the malak YHWH'’s activity. 
The versions are not in agreement as to how 
to identify this figure: the Hebrew text pre- 
sents the malak YHWH at work everywhere 
(except of course for Yahweh's activity in 
vv 28.31a); the LXX generally identifies this 
figure as the messenger of "God" and not 
Yahweh (with some exceptions and even 
variations within the manuscript tradition); 
the Vulgate mentions the "angel of the 
Lord" only in v 22 and everywhere elsc 
simply calls the figure an angelus or omits 
reference to it entirely (vv 25.34). Josephus' 
summary of the account (Amt. IV.108-111) 
refers to it as “an angel of God” and a “di- 
vine spirit” (theiou pneumatos) in contrast to 


ANGEL OF YAHWEH 


the LXX “the messenger of God” (v 23). 
The narrative describes this mal’ak YHWH 
as an adversary (§dfdn, vv 22.32), standing 
in roads and vineyards (vv 22.23.24.26.31) 
with drawn sword in hand (vv 23.1), 
receiving homage from a human (v 31). 
Balaam treats this mal"àk—and not God—as 
the ultimate court of appeal ("If it is dis- 
pleasing in your eyes”, v 34). The mal’ak 
does not indicate that he has been sent by 
God, for he speaks of himself as an indepen- 
dent authority (“I came out as an adversary 
because your way was contrary to me”, v 
32; “I would have killed you”, v 33; “Only 
the word I speak to you shall you speak”, v 
35). 

In Gen 16:7-13, all texts agree that a 
figure identified as “messenger of Yahweh” 
(vy 7.9.10.11) speaks (LXX adds a further 
reference to this figure in v 8, while Vg 
deletes its mention in vv 10-11). When it 
first appears in Josephus (Ant. 1.189), it is 
simply called “a messenger of Yahweh” (cf. 
Jub. 17:11, "an angel of the Lord, onc of the 
holy ones”). Only once does the mal’ak 
seem to speak of Yahweh as someone dis- 
tinct from himself (v 11), but he never inti- 
mates that Yahweh sent him or that the 
words he speaks come from Yahweh. In- 
stead, the mal’ak speaks as if he were God: 
“T will greatly multiply your descendants” (v 
10). Even the narrator closes by noting that 
it was Yahweh who spoke to Hagar, 
prompting her to be surprised that she still 
remained alive (v 13). 

In Judg 2:1-4, where MT clearly has a 
lacuna in the introduction, the phrase mal'ak 
YHWH appears twice (vv 1.4). The words 
spoken by the rmal'àk in the MT are entirely 
in the first person as if God were speaking 
("the land which I swore to your fathers"). 
But LXX Cod. B prefaces these words with 
a citation formula ("Thus says the Lord, 
‘the land which I swore...’”), while 
LXXA modifies the person in the first half 
of the speech without the citation formula 
("the land which he [i.e., Yahweh] swore..."). 
The Targum interpreted this messenger as a 
human prophet (for a similar interchange, cf. 
apocryphal Ps 151:4 “his prophet" in 11 QPs^ 


56 


which appears as “his aggelos” in Greek). 

God's revelation to -^Moses at the bum- 
ing bush (Exod 3:2-4:17) encompasses 38 
verses in which Yahweh is explicitly and 
repeatedly described as speaking with 
Moses. But the entire account is made prob- 
lematic when it is prefaced with the phrase, 
"mal'ak YHWH appeared to him in a blazing 
fire” (Exod 3:2), which is quoted in the NT 
as an indefinite "an angel" with no reference 
to "the Lord" (Acts 7:30; cf. vv 35.38). On 
the other hand, the Vulgate simply reads, 
"Yahweh appeared...." preserving no refer- 
ence to a mal'àk (Josephus refers only to a 
"voice" that speaks from the bush before 
God is identified in Ant. 1I.264-2). 

Although most versions present Yahweh 
as the one who intends to kill Moses in 
Exod 4:24 over the issue of circumcision, 
the LXX identifies "an angel of the Lord" as 
the aggressor (the Targums also insert the 
word mal’ak, cf. b. Ned. 32a; Jub. 48:2-4 
sees it as the wicked angel -*Mastemah; sce 
— Destroyer). 

Although God himself had earlier com- 
manded -»Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 
22:1-2), in Gen 22:1 1-18 it is only a mal’ak 
YHWH that speaks “from heaven” with 
Abraham when the sacrifice is in progress 
(vv 11.15). Jubilees calls it the "angel of the 
presence". (mal'ak happánim; 18:9-11; cf. 
2:1) and Demetrius the Chronographer spe- 
aks simply of "an angel" (OTP 2.848), but 
Josephus depicts only God speaking (Aut. 
1.233-236) and Pseudo-Philo 32:4 talks of 
God who "sent his voice". With the excep- 
tion of a reference to God in the third pers- 
on (v 12), the speech of the mal’ak sounds 
like God talking: “You have not withheld 
your son from me™ (v 12), “I will greatly 
bless you" (v 17), “you obeyed my voice” 
(v 17). Nowhere does this mal’ak indicate 
that he was sent from God or that he speaks 
these words at God's command. Although 
the phrase "says (n&'üm) the Lord” is inser- 
ted in the midst of the mal’ak’s speech at 
one point (v 16), this phrase is found only 
here in Genesis, and no other biblical mal’ak 
YHWH ever employs it. 

As Elijah flees from —>Jezebel in 


ANGEL OF YAHWEH 


Kings 19, he is twice provided in the MT by 
a mal'ük with food and drink for his long 
journey (vv 5.7). This mal’ak is called a 
mal'ak YHWH only when it is mentioned on 
the second occasion (some Vulgate MSS 
also call the first. appearance a mal’ak 
YHWH). In the LXX the first mention of the 
mal'àk does not identify it as such, simply 
saying "someone", while the second appear- 
ance appears with the definite article. 
Josephus never mentions a mal’ak in his 
account (Ant. VITI.349), simply saying 
"someone". 

The phrase mal’ak YHWH appears three 
times in Zechariah’s vision of the High 
Priest Joshua in Zechariah 3. Joshua stands 
before this angel (vv 1.5; cf. v 3) who 
admonishes him with words prefaced by, 
“Thus says Yahweh” (v 6), and who orders 
bystanders to remove Joshua’s filthy gar- 
ments (vv 5-6). Because Yahweh speaks 
awkwardly in v 2, one should take seriously 
the Syriac rendition of v 2 which includes 
instead another reference to the figure: "and 
the angel of the Lord said...." 

In contrast to the ten preceding passages. 
the following two passages present neither 
textual problems nor internal conflicts in 
identifying who is speaking: the words and 
actions of the mal’ak YHWH present no con- 
ceptual difficulties. Nevertheless, the texts 
evince certain peculiarities that require 
attention. 

In 2 Kings l, a maľak YHWH (vv 3.15) 
appears and twice gives orders to Elijah as 
to what he is to say and do. Thus, Elijah 
himself is to function as God's malàk 
“messenger” in relaying a message from 
God (“Thus says the Lord”, vv 4.6), but 
Elijah does not receive the commission 
directly from God. This fact is striking since 
God elsewhere in the Elijah stories typically 
speaks directly to this prophet (or the phrase 
appears “the word of Yahweh came to 
Elijah"). Josephus summarizes this account 
without mentioning a mal’ak: it is God who 
speaks (Ant. [X.20-21.26). 

In the Song of Deborah, the sentence 
appears, “‘Curse, Meroz,’ said the angel of 
the Lord, ‘utterly curse its inhabitants’ 


57 


(Judg 5:23). The sudden, unmotivated, and 
unclear significance of a reference to malak 
YHWH at this point prompts many to be 
uncomfortable with the originality of the 
phrase "said the angel of the Lord." 

The following four passages pose no 
problems in analysing the mal’ak YHWH, 
for there is nothing inconsistent with this 
being's function as a supernatural envoy 
sent by Yahweh, and any textual variants 
are not problematic. 2 Kgs 19:35 (2 Isa 37: 
36; cf. 2 Chr 32:21) narrates tersely how a 
mal’ak YHWH (LXX indefinite) “went out” 
and destroyed Sennacherib’s army as it 
besieged Jerusalem (-*Destroyer). When 2 
Mace 15:22-23 records a later request by 
second century BCE Jews to re-enact this 
miracle for them, it is simply "an angel" 
(indefinite) that they anticipate from God. 

An “angel of Yahweh”, clearly distinct 
from Yahweh, does not speak but does act 
in accord with Yahweh's commands regard- 
ing the devastation of David’s kingdom (2 
Sam 24:16; cf. 1 Chr 21:12.15.16.18.30). 
This creature is also described as “the 
destroying angel”, the “smiting angel” and a 
“destroying angel of Yahweh”. 

In the only two psalms to mention mal’ak 
YHWH, one of the benefits accruing to God- 
fearers is that a maPak YHWH camps (HNH 
participle) around them and delivers them 
(Ps 34:8(7]). The phrase appears twice in 
imprecations in Ps 35:5-6 summoning a 
maľak YHWH to pursue relentlessly (DHH, 
RDP) the enemies of the psalmist. LXX 
treats all three as indefinite. 

The last group of texts confirms that 
Yahweh can, indeed, send out a supernatural 
envoy to do his bidding, much like the 
messengers sent out by other gods of the 
ancient Near East. Unlike the other cultures., 
however, there is no firm evidence that 
Yahweh had a panicular subordinate who 
fulfilled this role. 

The first group of ten texts, however, pre- 
sents a different picture with their textual 
variants and vacillating identifications of the 
“angel of Yahweh” (distinct from Yahweh? 
identical to Yahweh?). Among proposals 
offered to explain the evidence, one finds 


ANGEL OF YAHWEH 


the angel of Yahweh in these passages inter- 
preted as Yahweh in a theophany, the prein- 
camate -*Christ, a means of crystallizing 
into one figure the many revelatory forms of 
an early polytheism, a hypostatization, a 
supernatural envoy of Yahweh where the 
confusion in identity results from messenger 
activity that merges the personality or 
speech of the messenger with the sender, or 
an interpolation of the word mal’ak into the 
text where originally it was simply Yahweh 
speaking and at work. 

The notion that the identity of messenger 
and sender could be merged in the ancient 
Near East is incorrect: any messenger who 
failed to identify the one who sent him sub- 
verted the entire communication process 
(see -*Angel). On the other hand, those who 
posit an identity (whether by theophany or 
hypostatization) between Yahweh and the 
mal'ak YHWH apart from this theory do not 
do justice to the full significance of the term 
mal'ak which must mean a subordinate (in 
contrast to other later terms such as 
-'Logos, Memra, Shekinah, Kabod, sec 
-'Glory). The biblical poetic parallelism 
Yahweh // mal’ak (Isa 63:9; Hos 12:4-5[3- 
4]; Mal 3:1) does not justify the necessary 
equation of the two terms any more than the 
parallelism of Saul // David (1 Sam 18:7) or 
heaven // earth (Deut 32:1) identifies the 
respective elements. The identification of the 
mal'ak YHWH with the preincarnate Christ 
violates the original intent of the texts' 
authors. Instead, the remarkable textual 
instability in identifying the figure is best 
resolved by the interpolation theory. es- 
pecially since there are passages where the 
interpolation is undeniable when it is not 
found in all witnesses (e.g. Exod 4:24). 
According to this theory, the figure is ident- 
ified with Yahweh in some texts because it 
was, in fact, Yahweh before the interpola- 
tion of the word mal’ak. The behaviour of 
the mal’ak YHWH in many of these disputed 
passages is precisely that of a deity and not 
a deity’s messenger (IRVIN 1978). The word 
maak was inserted in certain contexts 
because of theological discomfort with 
Yahweh appearing as a Satan adversary 


58 


(Numbers 22), or in visible form or with the 
actions of a man (Gen 16:13; Judges 6; 13; 
cf. Gen 22:14), or in contexts where the 
actual presence of God was otherwise theol- 
ogically troublesome (Exod 4:24). In many 
passages, inadequate data hinder confidence 
in determining if the mal’ak YHWH is in 
fact an envoy or an interpolation. 

In the Apocrypha, Susanna provides fur- 
ther evidence that there was a time when a 
choice between either the activity of God or 
an “angel of Yahweh” was a live option for 
writers. The Theodotian text indicates that 
“an angel of the Lord” gave a spirit of 
-"wisdom to -*Daniel in contrast to the 
LXX that specifies God as the source (v 45). 
LXX texts picture Daniel twice referring to 
"the angel of the Lord" who with his sword 
will slay the wicked (vv 55.59); Theodotian 
texts. here. preserve. instead. "an angel of 
God" and "the angel of God" respectively. 
Finally, LXX (not Theodotion) describes 
“the angel of the Lord” casting fire upon the 
two wicked men (v 62). 

Elsewhere in the Apocrypha, there is 
never any question of identifying the “angel 
of Yahweh” with God, for the figure con- 
sistently conforms to the pattern of a mess- 
enger despatched by God (usually without 
the definite article). Each time the figure is 
mentioned in Bel and the Dragon (LXX and 
Theodotion vv 34.36.39(LXX "of God"]). 
he is transporting Habakkuk by his hair to 
and from Babylon (no definite article when 
first mentioned), and when the angel speaks 
to Habakkuk, Theod prefaces its words with 
"Thus says the Lord", omitted by the LXX. 
In a prose interlude in the Song of the Three 
Children, "an angel of the Lord" (LXX; 
Theod "the angel of the Lord") descends to 
join the youths in the furnace and to dissi- 
pate the flames. 

In the book of Tobit, no reference ap- 
pears to an "angel of the Lord" until the 
close of the book. In 12:22 -*Raphael, who 
has been active throughout the book and 
referred to elsewhere by the narrator simply 
as “an angel” (5:4) and by other characters 
as merely a "man" (5:8.16). ascends to God, 
at which time the onlookers in 12:22 refer to 


ANTHROPOS 





him as “the angel of the Lord” (LXXBA; 
LXXS "an angel of God"). Before he does 
so, he identifies himself as one of the seven 
holy angels who bring the prayers of God's 
people into God's presence (12:15). 

In conclusion, there is in the Bible no 
single “The angel of Yahweh". The phrase 
maak YHWH is better translated as “an 
angel (or messenger) of Yahweh” when it 
first appears in a narrative, for it represents 
the appearance of an unspecified supernat- 
ural envoy sent from Yahweh. In cases 
where a simultaneous identity and discontin- 
uity is uncomfortably present between 
Yahweh and his messenger, the term mal’ak 
is probably a secondary addition to the text 
in response to changing theological perspec- 
tives. 

IV. The phrase mal’ak YHWH is not yet 
attested in published, non-biblical materials 
from Qumran, despite a sophisticated and 
extensive angelology in these texts. This 
omission correlates with the non-specificity 
of the figure in early witnesses, for in spite 
of the proliferation of details about angels in 
extra- and post-biblical texts, the “angel of 
Yahweh” receives in general no special 
attention in Judaism. It is true that one may 
trace in Jewish apocalyptic the development 
of a single exalted angel that some have 
tried to derive from the earlier mal’ak 
YHWH (ROWLAND 1982:94-113), but the 
connection between the two remains un- 
demonstrated and the terminology is differ- 
ent. Quite the contrary, a vigorous clement 
in early Judaism resisted sectarians who be- 
lieved that a certain principal angel was a 
special -*mediator between God and man 
(SEcAL 1977:70). Developing descriptions 
about the highest-ranking angels tend to 
avoid the phrase “angel of the Lord” in 
favour of more elaborate titles. Extensive 
gnostic speculations about demiurges and 
the cosmic hierarchy likewise tend to by- 
pass the nomenclature of the "angel of the 
Lord", although the "Messenger" is a 
significant divine emanation in some gnostic 
traditions such as Manichaeism (cf. Samarit- 
an gnosticism [Fossum 1985]). 

V. Bibliography 


J. E. Fossum, The Name of God and the 
Angel of the Lord - Samaritan and Jewish 
Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin 
of Gnosticism (WUNT 36; Tübingen 1985); 
F. GuccisBERG, Die Gestalt des Mal’ak 
Jahwe im Alten Testament (Dach 1979); V. 
HırTH, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament 
(Theologische Arbeiten 32; Berlin 1975); D. 
Irvin, Mytharion. The Comparison of Tales 
from the Old Testament and the Ancient 
Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978); H. 
RÖTTGER, Maľak Jahwe - Bote von Gott. 
Die Vorstellung von Gottes Boten im hebrä- 
ischen Alten Testament (Frankfurt 1978); C. 
ROWLAND, The Open Heaven - A Study of 
Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christian- 
ity (London 1982); A. F. SEGAL, Two 
Powers in Heaven - Early Rabbinic Reports 
About Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden 
1977); F. STER, Gott und sein Engel im 
Alten Testament (Alttestamentliche Abhand- 
lungen 12,2; Münster 1934). 


S. A. MEIER 


ANTHROPOS “Av@pwxos 

Il. One designation, with or without 
qualification, of the highest being in many 
gnostic systems: quae est super omnia 
virtus, et continet omnia, Anthropos vocatur 
(Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.12.4). The name 
draws attention to the direct or indirect link 
between supreme divinity and humanity, 
esp. the ‘unwavering race’, thanks to which 
redemption from the world created by the 
-*Archons is possible. The name Anthropos 
signifies that -God is the prototype of Man 
(anthropos), because man is made, directly 
or indirectly, in his image. The Religions- 
geschichtliche Schule and others claimed 
that an. oriental. Urmensch-myth lay behind 
the gnostic doctrine. This account has been 
invoked to explain the Pauline passages (1 
Cor 15:21-2, 45-49; Rom 5: 12-21) in which 
Christ is compared and contrasted with the 
first man, Adam. Neither of these views 
has worn well. 

II. There are two related types of 
gnostic anthropological myth, both of which 
draw upon a motif, an image reflected in 


59 


ANTHROPOS 


water, that goes back to Satornil and thus 
‘Samaritan’ gnosis (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 
1.24.1) (ScHENKE 1962:64-68). They share 
the basic premise that (human) man is at 
least potentially a higher being than the 
demiurge of the world, who enviously with- 
held this knowledge (the forbidden fruit of 
Gen 2:16-17) from Adam. The simpler is 
best exemplified by the long recension of 
the Apocryphon of John (NHC 1.1, 14:13- 
21:16). This envisages Adam's ‘choic’ or 
material body as modelled by the Archons 
of the demiurge directly upon a glimpsed 
reflection of the image of the Perfect Man 
(the highest god) (14:24-15:12). His psyche 
is likewise created by the Archons; but his 
divine pneuma derives from Sophia. Coming 
directly from the world of light, it in fact 
pre-exists choic and psychic bodies. The 
second type, exemplified by the Naassene 
exegesis (in the distorted and lacunate 
account of Hippolytus Ref. haer. 5.7.3-9.9), 
protects the transcendence of the highest 
divinity by interpolating a hypostasis 
between Anthropos and Man: the hypostasis 
or -*image (eikón) supplies both the mode! 
for physical man and the divine particle of 
light. The Perfect Man, the Father of All, 
Adam, produces a son ‘of the same sub- 
stance’. The physical body of human Adam 
made by the Archons of the demiurge Esal- 
daios is (indirectly) modelled upon this son. 
When the son, probably in the form of di- 
vine light, descends to vivify the creature, 
he is trapped: over the generations descend- 
ing from Adam, the light is split up into 
innumerable fragments, each of which may 
retum to the Light World (FnickEL 1984: 
263). This principle could be indefinitely 
extended: any emanation from the Perfect 
Man may be named Anthropos, even the 
female Barbelo in Apocryphon of John, 
because she is 'the image of the Father' (14: 
23; cf. 5:7; 6:4). In Eugnostos, a series of 
emanations from the First-Father, also called 
Anthropos (NHC III.3, 77:14), is named in 
turn First Man, Immortal Man, -*Son of 
Man, -*Saviour (78:3; 85:10-14). 

As a key gnostic motif, Anthropos has 
figured in all accounts of the genesis or 


60 


proto-history of gnosticism. Older accounts 
may be briefly summarized. W. BoussET 
claimed that an ancient oriental myth, thc 
creation of the world from the parts of a 
sacrificial victim, the prototypical man, must 
underlie the narratives of Poimandres 12-15 
and several Christian accounts of gnostic 
systems (Hauptprobleme der Gnosis [Gót- 
tingen 1907, repr. 1973] 160-223). The best- 
known of these myths, that of the Iranian 
Gayómart, stimulated R. REITZENSTEIN in 
turn to propose the existence of an Iranian 
popular cult of a redeemed redeemer, which 
ultimately inspired the gnostic myth as a 
whole (e.g. Das iranische Erlósungsmysteri- 
um, Bonn 1921). C. H. KRAELING attempted 
to link Bousset's view to Jewish Messianism 
(Anthropos and the Son of Man, New York 
1927), G. WIDENGREN to find the redeemed 
redeemer in carly Iranian texts (The great 
Vohu Manah, Uppsala 1945). None of these 
views survived the criticisms of COLPE 
(1961:140-70; cf. 1969:411) and SCHENKE 
(1962:69-114), though it was still possible 
for RUDOLPH in 1964 to stress the supposed 
Iranian antecedents of gnosticism. The deci- 
sive considerations, as SCHENKE showed, 
were the new texts from Nag Hammadi, 
which provided far more reliable accounts 
of gnostic Anthropos than had been avail- 
able, and an appreciation of the character of 
post-Biblical Jewish techniques of exegesis 
(cf. TROGER 1980:155-168). There is simply 
no evidence for the redeemed redeemer in 
gnosis until Manicheism. The key texts that 
inspire all gnostic anthropology are Gen 
1:26-27; 2:7 & 2:21-24, together with the 
post-Biblical Jewish exegeses of these pas- 
sages (cf. QuispPEL 1953:215-217, 226; 
PEARSON 1973:51-81; 1990). Certainly, 
gnostic ‘systems’ are syncretic, but no pre- 
cise antecedent of the basic macro-/micro- 
cosmic scheme is required; and syncretism 
is only one of the processes involved in the 
elaboration of the complex gnostic scen- 
arios. TARDIEU (1974) has provided a con- 
vincing account of the varied sources of 
inspiration, and the narrative logic, of one 
such anthropology, in the Origin of the 
World (NHC II.5). Iran, to say nothing of 


ANTHROPOS 


ancient oriental myths, has disappeared 
totally from RUDOLPH’s most recent sum- 
mary (1990:99-130). 

III. Within NT studies, the authority of 
R. BULTMANN, who tended to accept the 
'oriental' origins of gnosis as a fact (e.g. 
1964; 1984), caused it to be widely can- 
vassed, and not only among his pupils (sec 
e.g. J. JEREMIAS, s.v. Adam, TWNT | [1933] 
142-143; H. SCHLIER, RAC 3 [1956] 437- 
53), that the Christology of Pauline Chris- 
tianity was significantly influenced by 
"Urmensch und Erlóser', however they 
came to be combined into an eschatological 
Adam (cf. SiNN 1991). But the objections to 
any direct relation between gnostic myth 
and Pauline Christology are decisive 
(SCHENKE 1973). Thus COLPE argued that 
‘Son of Man’ has no genetic link with 
Gnostic ideas (1969:414-418). The basic 
premises of W. SCUMITHALS’ Die Gnosis in 
Korinth 3 (1969) were undermined by 
SCHENKE & FIscHER, Einleitung in die 
Schriften des NT (Berlin 1978-1979) 1:103- 
5. The contrast between pneumatikos and 
psychikos in 1 Cor 14:44-46 derives from 
Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom speculation, and 
was thus freely available both to Gnostics 
and to early Christians (PEARSON 1973). 
The differences in the structure and meaning 
of gnostic anthropology by contrast with the 
Pauline scheme have been noted by FISCHER 
1980:289-294. 

Although the inverse assumption viz., 
that the Pauline Adam-Christ inverted 
parallelism has Judaic sources, can also not 
be conclusively demonstrated, there have 
been adequate treatments of the Pauline 
Adam-Christ typology which do not con- 
cede even the limited gnostic influence 
allowed by BRANDENBURGER (1962) or 
SCHOTTROFF (1970). Corre (1969:475-477) 
showed that I Cor 15:45-49 is an elabor- 
ation through reduplicated antithesis of 
15:21, and that no prior schema underlies 
the passage. In Rom 5:12-21, which is de- 
rivative from the Cor passage, an apoca- 
lyptic notion, -*Jesus as the -*Son of Man, 
has been recast into the prototype Man of 
the resurrection, contrasted with the death 


61 


brought about by Adam. The origin of the 
typology in Alexandrian wisdom speculation 
was pointed out by SANDELIN (1976:91- 
113), thus undermining Reitzenstein's view 
of Philo Leg. Alleg. 1.31; the same scheme 
lies behind Phil 2:6-9. BARRETT (1985) like- 
wise analysed the role of exegesis of Gen 1- 
2 in 1 Cor 15, but stressed the probable allu- 
sion to the representative Man of Dan 7:13 
and the implied rejection of Philo’s Plato- 
nism in Leg Alleg. 1:31 (cf. LIETZMANN ad 
1 Cor 15:45-49). FISCHER has urged that 1 
Cor 15:45-49 is a unique melding of strands 
of belief derived both from Jewish Apoca- 
lyptic (4 Ezra, 2 Apoc. Bar.) and from gnos- 
tic myth (1980:294-298), but that no coher- 
ent gnostic doctrine inspired Paul negatively 
or positively. The most recent discussions of 
| Cor 15 draw on both CoLPE and BARRET 
(WITHERINGTON 1992:184-193; 1994:308f.) 
- the analogies Paul uses are merely partial 
ones and not to be pressed. Attention has 
switched to the construction of the rhetorical 
argument as a whole in favour of the resur- 
rection of the dead. 
IV. Bibliography 

F. ALTERMATH, Du corps psychique au 
corps spirituel (Beitr. Gesch. bibl. Exeg. 18; 
Tiibingen 1977); C. K. Barrett, The 
Significance of the Adam-Christ Typology 
for the Resurrection of the Dead, Résurrec- 
tion du Christ et des chrétiens (ed. L. de 
Lorenzi; Sér. monogr. Bénédict., sect. bibl.- 
oec. 8; Rome 1985) 99-122; E. BRANDEN- 
BURGER, Adam und Christus (WMANT 7; 
Neukirchen 1962); R. BULTMANN, Adam 
und Christus nach Rémer 5, Der alte und 
der neue Mensch in der Theologie des 
Paulus (Darmstadt 1964) 41-66, repr. from 
ZNW 50 (1959) 145-65; BULTMANN, Theo- 
logie des NT (Tübingen 19849) 166-186; C. 
CoLPE, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule 
(Göttingen 1961); CorrE, ó vidg tov 
av@pojrov, TWNT 8 (1969) 403-481; K. M. 
FISCHER, Adam und Christus, Altes 
Testament - Frithjudentum - Gnosis (ed. K. 
Tróger; Berlin 1980) 283-98; J. FRICKEL, 
Hellenistische Erlósung in christlicher Deu- 
tung: der gnostische Naassenerschrift (NHS 
19; Leiden 1984) 259-269; B. A. PEARSON, 


ANTICHRIST 





The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 
1 Corinthians (SBLDS 12; Missoula 1973); 
PEARSON, Gnosticism, Judaism and Egypt- 
ian Christianity (Minneapolis 1990) 29-38; 
G. QuisPEL, Der gnostische Anthropos und 
die jüdische Tradition, ErJb 22 (1953) 195- 
234; K. RUDOLPH, Stand und Aufgabe in 
der Erforschung des Gnostizismus (1964), 
repr. in Gnosis und Gnostizismus (ed. K. 
Rudolph; Darmstadt 1975) 510-553: 
RupoLPH, Die Gnosis (Góttingen 19903); 
K-G. SANDELIN, Die Auseinandersetzung 
mit der Weisheit in 1 Kor. 15 (Abo 1976); 
H-M. ScHENKE, Der Gott ‘Mensch’ in der 
Gnosis (Göttingen 1962); M. SCHENKE, Die 
neutestamentliche Christologie und der 
gnostische Erlöser, Gnosis und Neues Testa- 
ment (ed. K. Tröger; Berlin 1973) 205-229; 
L. ScHotrrorr, Der Glaubende und die 
feindliche Welt (WMANT 37; Neukirchen 
1970); G. SıNN, Christologie und Existenz: 
Rudolf Bultmann’s Interpretation des pauli- 
nischen Christuszeugnisses (TANZ 4; 
Tübingen 1991); M. TARDIEU, Trois mythes 
gnostiques (Paris 1974) 86-139; B. WrruE- 
RINGTON III, Jesus, Paul and the End of the 
World (Downer's Grove, Ill. 1992); WITHE- 
RINGTON, Conflict and Community in 
Corinth (Grand Rapids/Carlisle 1994). 


R. L. GORDON 


ANTICHRIST avtixptotos 

]. The word antichristos is found only 
in 1 John 2:18.22; 4:3; 2 John 7, and in 
post-biblical Christian literature. Morpho- 
logically the closest analogy is antitheos 
which was in use since Homer (Od. 11:117; 
13:378; 14:18). In Homer antitheos means 
‘godlike’. In later times it comes to mean 
‘contrary to God’ (for instance Philo, 
Poster. 37:3; 123:4; Congr. 118:1; Fug. 
140:3). The term antichristos is ambiguous 
(‘opponent of —Christ’ or ‘false Christ’) 
owing to the twofold meaning of anti in 
composita: it can mean ‘against’ (anti- 
stratégos: ‘the enemy’s general’, Thucy- 
dides 7:86) or ‘instead of? (antipsychos: 
‘something offered instead of one’s life’, 
Dio Cassius 59:8; neuter in 4 Macc 6:29; 
17:21). 


62 


In the Epistles of John antichristos is 
used as a designation for the ultimate escha- 
tological opponent of -*Jesus Christ. The 
appearance of the anticliristos is expected to 
precede the parousia of Christ. The author 
of 1 and 2 John refers to this expectation as 
an existing tradition (1 John 2:18: 'as you 
have heard ...'), although the tradition of 
Antichrist is not attested in its full form 
before Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5:25-30). After 
having referred to the tradition the author 
uses the word antichristos to characterize 
his opponents who as antichristoi deny 
Christ (1 John 2:18—plural; 1 John 2:22; 2 
John 7—singular). Their teaching is inspired 
by the spirit of Antichrist, and presented by 
the author as proof that Antichrist has al- 
ready come (1 John 4:3). By interpreting the 
conflict with those who deny Christ (1 John 
2:22) by means of the expectation of Anti- 
christ, the author of the Epistles of John 
argues the neamess of the end (1 John 
2:18). 

Il. Neither the word antichristos nor a 
Hebrew or other equivalent is used in any of 
the versions of the OT or in extra-biblical 
literature of the period. But although thc 
word is not used before the Epistles of John, 
the concept of eschatological opposition 
reaching its climax in the appearance and 
activity of a single person is already found 
in some OT passages: Ezek 38-39 mentions 
—Gog of -*Magog as Israel's final enemy 
(cf. Rev 20:8); Dan 7-8.11 describes the 
appearance of an evil tyrant who will act as 
the final enemy of God and Israel. The tradi- 
tion of an evil tyrant as the climax of escha- 
tological evil should be understood as a 
specification of the tradition of the escha- 
tological enmity of the pagan peoples and 
Israel (cf. Isa 5:25-30; 8:18-20; 10:5-7; 
37:16-20; Nah 3:1-7; Joel 4; Zech 14). This 
expectation of eschatological hostility 
between Israel and the peoples is also 
expressed in extra-biblical sources. Some- 
times the hostility is thought to reach a cli- 
max in the rise of an eschatological tyrant (7 
En. 90:9-16; Ass. Mos. 8; 2 Apoc. Bar. 36- 
40; 70; 4 Ezra 5:1-13; 12:29-33; 13:25-38). 
Among the various passages of the Qumran 
literature containing forms of eschatological 


ANTICHRIST 


dualism, the account of Melchizedek and 
Melchiresha in 4Q280-282 and 4QAmram 
takes a special place as an analogy: as in the 
case of Christ and Antichrist the typology of 
agent (= prototype) and opponent (= anti- 
type) appears to have been constitutive. 

There are a number of passages in the NT 
that predict or record the appearance of 
eschatological opponents without using the 
word antichristos. In Mark 13:22 false 
Christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets 
(pseudoprophétai) are described as appear- 
ing before the end (cf. v 6). They will de- 
ceive people by doing signs and wonders 
(cf. Matt 7:15; 24:11.23-24). Obviously, the 
evangelist is referring here to people of his 
own time. Some interpreters wrongly regard 
the ‘desolating sacrilege’ of Mark 13:14 as 
referring to Antichrist (see for instance J. 
GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus 
[EKK II/2; Neukirchen 1979] 195-196). As 
there is no hint whatsoever in this direction, 
the masculine participle /testékota should be 
explained in a different way (for instance as 
a reference to ‘the Roman’). 

In 2 Thess 2:3-12 the coming of the 
‘Lawless One’ is described as preceding the 
parousia of Christ. This Lawless One will 
act haughtily, and proclaim himself as a 
god. He will act with the power of ->Satan, 
and deceive people by doing signs and won- 
ders. Ultimately, he will be vanquished by 
Christ (v 8). Although the word antichristos 
is not used, the Lawless One is often re- 
garded as the earliest description of Anti- 
christ. This interpretation is attested at least 
since Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 11:8.7). Still it 
should be noted that the Lawless One is 
rather a future, eschatological ‘anti-God’ 
than an Antichrist (v 4). 

In Revelation there are a number of 
eschatological opponents. The most promi- 
nent of these are the -*Dragon and the two 
Beasts mentioned in chaps. 12-13; 16:13; 
20:10. The Dragon is presented as "the Old 
—Serpent", "Satan" (20:2) The second 
Beast, the Beast from the Land (13:11-18), 
is identified as "the false prophet" (16:13; 
20:10). The first Beast is only spoken of as 
"the Beast" (to thérion), and is also dc- 
scribed without the Dragon and the second 


63 


Beast (11:7; chap. 17). This adversary is 
often wrongly spoken of as Antichrist. With 
the images of the Beasts the author of Rev- 
elation is referring to the dangers of his own 
time. 

At least three different traditions form the 
background of the tradition of Antichrist, 
which is attested in its full form from 
Irenaeus onward: that of Satan / Belial, 
that of the coming of eschatological false 
prophets (cf. MEEKS 1967), and that of the 
final eschatological tyrant as described in 
Daniel. Possibly, also the myth of Nero- 
redivivus played a part. The old view of an 
esoteric, pre-Christian tradition of Antichrist 
(GuNKEL 1895; Bousset 1895; CHARLES 
1920) was successfully refuted by ERNST 
1967, Jenks 1991 and LiETAERT PEERBOLTE 
1996. They rightly argued that the concept 
of Antichrist is a Christian idea and that it 
was not fully developed until the late 2nd 
century CE. As a result, the various passages 
before Irenaeus that describe eschatological 
opponents should be regarded as witnesses 
of separate traditions, not of one continuous 
tradition. The agreement between these pas- 
sages lies in the fact that they all reflect 
upon events that were thought to precede the 
parousia of Christ. Yet the ways in which 
these events are described differ widely: in 
the Epistles of John the tradition of Anti- 
christ is used for the interpretation of the 
conflict with the deniers of Christ. Thus the 
nearness of the end is argued. In 2 Thess the 
coming of the Lawless One is predicted in 
order to justify that the end will not come 
shortly. The images of the Beasts in Rev 
describe the contemporary situation of per- 
secution and argue that Christ will overcome 
this situation of distress. And Mark 13:22 
(and par.) speaks about false prophets and 
false Christs as a standard feature of the last 
days, but assuming that those last days had 
already begun. 

IJI. Of post- and extra-biblical literature 
Did. 16 and Asc. Isa. 4 contain the earliest 
and most extensive descriptions of an escha- 
tological opponent of Christ. The word 
‘Antichrist’ is used in neither of these 
descriptions, however. It is mentioned for 
the first time in post-biblical literature in 


ANU — APHRODITE 


Polycarpus’ Phil. 7:1, a reference to 1 John 
4:2-3. Extensive speculations on the rise, 
character, outlooks, etc., of Antichrist are 
found in Christian literature from the latter 
part of the second century onward: one 
could mention Tertullian, Res. Car. xxiv: 
60,24; xxvit: 64,26; 65,10; Adv. Marcionem 
122,1; 118,2; v:16,4; Hippolytus, De Anti- 
christo, passim; Comm. Dan. 1v:24,7-8 and 
numerous other passages (sce JENKS 
1991:27-116). 
IV. Bibliography 

O. Bécuer, Antichrist II, TRE 3 (Berlin, 
New York 1978) 21-24; *W. Bousset, Der 
Antichrist in der Uberlieferung des Juden- 
tums, des Neuen Testaments und der frühen 
Kirche (Göttingen 1895); R. E. Brown, 
The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, 
New York 1982); *R. H. CHanLES, The 
Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh 1920) II, 
76-87; *J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen 
Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen 
Testaments (Regensburg 1967); M. FRIED- 
LANDER, Der Antichrist in den vorchrist- 
lichen jüdischen Quellen (Gottingen 1901); 
K. Grayston, The Johannine Epistles, 
(NCB; Grand Rapids / Basingstoke 1984) 
76-82; H. GuNKEL, Schópfung und Chaos 
in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen 1895); *G. 
C. JENKS, The Origins and Early Develop- 
ment of the Antichrist-Myth (BZNW 59; 
Berlin & New York 1991); L. J. LIETAERT 
PEERBOLTE, The Antecedents of Antichrist. 
A Traditio-Historical Study on the Earliest 
Christian Views of Eschatological Oppo- 
nents (JSJS 49; Leiden, New York, Köln, 
1996); E. LoHMEYER, Antichrist, RAC 1 
(1941), 450-457; W. A. MEEKS, The Proph- 
et-King. Moses Traditions and the Johanni- 
ne Christology (Leiden 1967) 47-55; B. 
RiGAUX, L'Antéchrist et l'opposition au 
royaume messianique dans l'Ancien et le 
Nouveau Testament (Gembloux 1932); G. 
STRECKER, Die Johannesbriefe (KEK 14; 
Góttingen 1989) 337-343; SrRECKER, Der 
Antichrist. Zum  religionsgeschichtlichen 
Hintergrund von 1 Joh 2:18.22; 4:3 und 2 
Joh 7, Text and Testimony (eds. T. Baarda, 
A. Hilhorst, G. P. Luttikhuizen & A. S. van 
der Woude; Kampen 1988) 247-254; R. 
ScHNACKENBURG, Die  Johannesbriefe 


(HTKNT XH/3; Freiburg 1979) 145-149. 


L. J. LIETAERT PEERBOLTE 


ANU -* HEAVEN 


APHRODITE "Aópoóitn 

I. Aphrodite was the Greek goddess of 
love whose sacred animal is the -*dove 
(PIRENNE-DELFORGE 1994). The Greeks 
derived her name from áópóg "foam", and 
explained it from her birth myth (Hesiod 
Theog. 191). Modern etymologies found no 
general consent, be it the rare Indo-Euro- 
paean ones or those deriving her name from 
a Semitic language (BURKERT 1977:240 
n.18). The goddess was identified with 
several Oriental goddesses, from Egyptian 
Nephthys to Phoenician -*Astarte, Assyrian 
-]shtar and Arabian Alilat (Herodot. 3,8. 
131; M. HórNER, WbMyth V1, 423; MORA 
1985:86-90). The Romans identified her 
with the Italian Venus (from  *venus, 
"beauty, grace"; ScHiLLING 1954), the 
Etruscans with Turan (PFIFFIG 1975:260- 
263). In the Bible, Aphrodite occurs only as 
a theophoric element in the anthroponym 
Epaphroditus (and its shortened form 
Epaphras), e.g. Phil 2:25; Col 1:7. 

II. Already in Homer, Aphrodite is the 
goddess of sexual pleasure. In /liad 5,429 
Zeus assigns her the erga gamoio; while 
gamos stresses her social functions as the 
divinity responsible for the sexual function- 
ing of marriage, this does not exclude extra- 
marital relationships, exemplified in her 
patronship over Helen (/liad 3, 383-388) or 
her relationship to Hephaestos her husband 
and —>Ares her lover (Od. 8, 266-269); in 
archaic poetry, she protects Sappho and her 
girls (e.g. Sappho frg.1 L.-P.) and the love- 
making of youth in general. This differen- 
tiates her from -*Hera, who protects mar- 
riage as a social institution but who, though 
the legitimate wife of -*Zeus, needs the 
assistance of Aphrodite in order to seduce 
him (Homer Iliad 14, 187-196). Several 
divinities who symbolize her powers consort 
with her. Eros, “Love” as sexual passion, 
and Himeros “Longing” accompany her 
after her birth, when she enters the assembly 


APHRODITE 


of the gods (Hesiod Theog. 201); later, Eros 
and Himeros - or his equivalent Pothos, 
“Desire”, Aeschylus, Suppl. 1040 - are her 
children (SHAPIRO 1993:110-124). The 
Charites (“Graces”) accompany her (Hom. 
Od.8, 364, see 18, 194 Charites himero- 
entes), or the Horai, "Seasons, Youths, 
Beauties" (Hom. hymn. 6, 5); other fol- 
lowers are Harmonia (SHAPIRO 1993:95- 
109) and Peitho, “Persuasion” (BUXTON 
1983; SHAPIRO 1993:186-207), who is also 
said to be her daughter (Aeschylus Suppl. 
1040). Together, these personifications add 
up to a picture of erotic seduction around 
the goddess of love; the negative conse- 
quences are expressed in a fragment from an 
Orphic poem, where she is escorted by 
Zelos, “Rivalry” and Apate, “Deceit” (Orph. 
frg. 127 Kem; hellenistic?). 

Since her main field of influence and 
action is private rather than public, Aphro- 
dite lacks important public festivals. The 
Aphrodisia were mostly festivals of hetairai, 
as in Athens (DEUBNER 1932:216) or in 
Corinth, where /retairai and free women 
celebrated the festival separately (Alexis ap. 
Athenaeus 13,33, who attests to the drinking 
and reveling [kóntos] of the hetairai). 

Besides, Aphrodite is involved in the pre- 
nuptial and nuptial rituals of the young girls. 
Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 2) lists her among 
the divinities necessary for the marrying 
couple, Zeus Teleios and Hera Telcia, 
Artemis, Aphrodite and Peitho. In some 
places, she receives sacrifices from marrying 
girls or remarrying widows (Hermione 
Pausanias 2,34,12; Sparta ibid.3,12,8-9, see 
also Naupactus ibid. 10,38,12); in the Hel- 
lenistic age, Aphrodite Laodikeia, the divine 
form of queen Laodike, received the 
sacrifices from marrying couples (Annuario 
della Scuola Archeologica di Atene 45/46 
[1969] 445 no. 2). Sometimes, the ritual 
background of girls' initiation rites is still 
visible, as in Athens, where the Arrhephoroi 
descend to the sanctuary of Aphrodite in the 
Gardens, at the end of their year of service 
on the Acropolis and before returning to a 
life closer to adulthood (BRuLÉ 1987:83- 
98). The same background lies behind the 
cultic association of Aphrodite and 


65 


—Hermes which has been analyzed es- 
pecially for Locri in Southern Italy (SouR- 
VINOU-INWOOD 1991:177-178) and the well- 
documented sanctuary of Hermes and 
Aphrodite in Cretan Kato Syme (LEBESSI 
1985). 

As early as Sappho (frg. 140. 168 Lobel- 
Page. see also Hes. frg. 139), the Adonia 
attest another form of women's festival con- 
nected with Aphrodite and her sphere. The 
Athenian festival (DEUBNER 1932:220-222) 
included the exposition of -*Adonis' body 
and his burial (Plutarch Alcib.18,5), but also 
drinking and dancing (Aristophanes Lys. 
392-398); to the classical vase painters, its 
most conspicuous ritual was the "Gardens of 
Adonis", sherds planted with seeds which 
were exposed on the roof-tops in order to 
grow and wither rapidly (see also Plato 
Phaedr. 276 B; BumKERT 1979:105-111); 
the cult in Alexandria (well attested in 
Theocritus, /d. 15), began with a hieros 
gamos and banquet of Aphrodite and 
Adonis, followed by the laments for Adonis 
and his burial in the sea. The Semitic origin 
of Adonis is evident already from his name 
which probably derives from ’ddén, ‘“(My) 
Lord". Frazerian interpretations had concen- 
trated on Adonis the Dying God; social and 
structural analysis rather underlines the re- 
lease from intensive every-day pressure 
which the festival with its blend of exotism, 
sensual seduction and high emotions offered 
to Greek women (DETIENNE 1972, who 
emphasizes the structural opposition to 
—Demeter, the other main goddess of 
women). The ritual exposure of short-lived 
gardens is not necessarily an original part of 
the festival: it has parallels in many parts of 
the Ancient and Modern East. Rather than 
stressing the short life of the plants, recent 
analysis focuses on the quick growth and 
proposes to sec in it a ritual testing of seeds 
(BAUDY 1986:9-13) which leads away from 
Aphrodite's central concerns. 

From the 4th cent. BCE onwards, Aphro- 
dite's sexual aspects appear as two polar 
oppositions, Aphrodite Urania and Aphro- 
dite Pandemos. Plato, Symp.180 E (sec also 
Xenophon Symp.8,9) contrasts them as ideal, 
spiritual love among males versus ordinary 


APHRODITE 


heterosexual love and prostitution. He con- 
nects this dichotomy with her double gen- 
ealogy, the Hesiodean one which makes 
Aphrodite the motherless result of Uranus’ 
castration (Theog. 188-195), and the Homer- 
ic one where she is the offspring of Zeus 
and Dione (/liad 5,370). Though very popu- 
lar afterwards, this dichotomy radically 
modifies the significance of the epithets 
involved. Urania, an epithet already at the 
root of the Hesiodic genealogy, continues a 
Near Eastern epithet (see below), whereas 
Pandemos, “She of the Entire Demos", 
declares Aphrodite as responsible for politi- 
cal harmony. She had an ancient sanctuary 
in Athens and a state festival celebrated with 
a procession (LSCG no. 39, from 287/286 
BCE; it prescribes also a cathartic sacrifice of 
a dove). Several epigraphical documents 
attest also sacrifices by magistrates to 
Aphrodite (SokoLowski 1964; CROISSANT 
& SaLviAT 1966). In some instances, they 
are the officials responsible for the women 
(gynaikonomoi), and Aphrodite receives cult 
as their helper. In other cases, the sacrifice 
is offered at the end of service, to mark the 
retum from duty to the pleasures of private 
life. 

A special problem is presented by the 
statues of an armed Aphrodite which are at- 
tested for Laconia (Aphrodite Areia, Paus- 
anias 3,17,5; Enoplios /G 5:1 no. 602, Ky- 
thera Paus. 3,23,1) and Corinth (Paus. 2,5,1) 
(FLEMBERG 1991). Like the armed ->Athena, 
the iconography must derive from the Near 
East (see below). In a more functionalist 
view, such statues are equivalent to stories 
about fighting women; both point to an un- 
usual ritual in the cult of Aphrodite (GRAF 
1984). 

Besides sexuality (especially female sex- 
uality) and the state, Aphrodite is associated 
with the -*sea. As patron goddess of sea- 
faring, she bears the epithets Euploia (“Giv- 
ing good sailing"), Pontia and Limenia; as 
such, she receives sacrifices and votive gifts 
from sailors and fishermen (Anth. Pal. 9, 
143). 

Aphrodite is among the few Greek divin- 
ities not attested in the Linear B texts; this 


66 


makes it likely that she came to Greece only 
after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, 
Her Near Eastern associations point to an 
Oriental origin (BURKERT 1977:238-240), 
even when etymologies (e.g. from —> Astarte) 
may seem dubious. Sumerian Innana, Akkad- 
ian Ishtar, Phoenician Astarte (already Hero- 
dotus 1,105) all share significant characteris- 
tics with Aphrodite: bisexuality (Aphroditos 
on Cyprus Paion FGH 757 F 1: Macrobius, 
Sat. 3,8), temple prostitution (in Corinth, 
Pindar frg. 122; not in Locri, SoURvINOU 
1991: 179), the epithet Urania (Assyrian 
according to Pausanias 1,14,7), the associa- 
tion with the sea and with the garden (Aph- 
rodite in the Gardens in Athens), the icono- 
graphy of a frontally naked goddess (BOHM 
1990, AMMERMAN 1991) and of an armed 
goddess (Cor.Bow 1991), the symbol of the 
ladder (SERVAIS-SOYEZ 1983). 

One of Aphrodite’s main cult centres was 
Cyprus. Already in Homer (Od. 8,363), 
Hesiod (Theog. 193) and the Homeric 
Hymn. Ven. 58, Cyprus houses her main 
sanctuary; Kypria (Cypria) is her standard 
epithet throughout antiquity. In 333/332 
BCE, the Athenians granted a lease of land 
for the building of a sanctuary to Aphrodite 
in Piraeus “on the same terms as for — Isis 
to the Egyptians” (SOKOLOWSKI 1969, no. 
37) to the merchants from Kition living in 
Piracus: Aphrodite was their national divin- 
ity. Her main Cypriot sanctuaries were at 
Amathous and at Paphos. Both antedate the 
advent of the Phoenicians in the 9th cent.; 
Paphos goes back to the 12th cent. and pre- 
serves a typically Mycenaean tripartite fa- 
cade until late antiquity, according to local 
coins. Paphos also included an oracle still 
consulted by the young Titus in 79 CE (Taci- 
tus, Hist. 2,1; Suetonius, Tit. 5,1). Perhaps, 
the goddess even had the Mycenaean royal 
title Vanassa, "Queen". These clear signs of 
a Mycenaean past complicate the history of 
Greek Aphrodite (there still is no solution) 
without, however, radically jeopardizing the 
theory of an Oriental origin. 

Apart from this mainstream Oriental 
model, Greek Aphrodite was associated with 
the Anatolian Great Goddess, Cybele (~Ma- 


APHRODITE 


Cybele). Charon of Lampsacus, a local 
writer of the 5th cent. BCE, identifies Aphro- 
dite and Kubebe (FGH 262 F 5); the de- 
scription of the goddess' appearance in the 
Homeric Hymn. Ven. 68-72 as a mistress of 
wild animals follows a pattern belonging to 
the Great Goddess. The main myth of the 
same hymn, however, the seduction of 
Anchises which resulted both in the birth of 
— Aeneas and the lameness of Anchises, fol- 
lows a mythical theme attested both for 
Cybele and for Innana-Ishtar, the love of the 
goddess which destroys her mortal lover 
(PiccALUGA 1974): the Anatolian Aphrodite 
seems to combine features of different ori- 
gin. The same holds true for the main polis 
cult of Aphrodite in Asia Minor, the cult of 
Aphrodisias in Caria (LAUMONIER 1958: 
478-504, esp. 480-48 1). 

Other cult centres were Cnidus on the 
Anatolian west coast, the island of Kythera 
off the south coast of the Peleponessus, and 
Corinth. Cythera came second in importance 
after Cyprus, Cytherea became a common 
epithet. The sanctuary and its cult must have 
retained oriental features, since Herodotus 
called it a Phoenician foundation (1,105); 
the statue was that of an armed goddess 
(Pausanias 3,23,1). Cnidus had three sanctu- 
aries, of Aphrodite Doritis, Akraia, and 
Euploia, according to Pausanias (1.1.3); the 
main sanctuary, of Aphrodite  Euploia, 
housed the famous statue by Praxiteles. The 
sanctuary at Corinth ("Aphrodite's town", 
Euripides, frg. 1084 Nauck) contained an- 
other statue of an armed Aphrodite (Paus- 
anias 2,5,1); it was famous for its sacred 
prostitution (Pindar frg. 122). The sanctuary 
on Mt. Eryx in Sicily, finally, started as a 
purely Phoenician one, until its Roman- 
ization after the First Punic War. The 
Platonic transformation of Aphrodite Pan- 
demos and Urania into opposing principles 
of love was continued by the Neoplatonist 
philosophers and enthusiastically received in 
Florentine Neo-Platonism (WIND 1967:141- 
151). The overtly sexual mythology of 
Aphrodite on the other hand lent itself to 
heavy Christian polemics, from her birth 
from Uranus’ genitals over her different 


67 


affairs with gods and men (Ares, Kinyras, 
Adonis, Anchises) to the Pygmalion myth. 

III. The Bible does not mention Aphro- 
dite, not even Acts, although Paul visited 
Paphus (Acts 13:6) and Corinth (Acts 18:1- 
17). two of her main cult places. Adonia are 
attested for Antiochia in Syria, Byblus and 
Alexandria, though without the gardens 
(BAupv 1986:20); the expansion of his cult 
in the ancient Near East might have in- 
cluded Jerusalem and its womenfolk. 

IV. Bibliography 
R. M. AMMERMAN, The Naked Standing 
Goddess. A Group of Archaic Terracotta 
Figurines from Paestum, AJA 95 (1991) 
203-230; G. J. BAUDY, Adonisgdrten. Stu- 
dien zur antiken Samensymbolik (Frankfurt 
1986); S. BöuM, Die “Nackte Göttin”. Zur 
Ikonographie und Deutung unbekleideter 
weiblicher Figuren in der frühgriechischen 
Kunst (Mainz 1990); P. BRULÉ, La fille 
d'Athènes. La religion des filles à Athènes à 
l'époque classique. Mythes, cultes et société 
(Paris 1987); W. BURKERT, Griechische 
Religion der archaischen und klassischen 
Epoche (RdM 15; Stuttgart 1977); BURKERT, 
Structure and History in Greek Mythology 
and Ritual (Sather Classical Lectures 47: 
Berkeley 1979); R. G. A. BUXTON, Persua- 
sion in Greek Tragedy. A Study of Peitho 
(Cambridge 1983). G. CoLBow, Die kriege- 
rische [Star. Zu den Erscheinungsformen 
bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte 
des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends 
(Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 12; 
Munich 1991); F. Croissant & F. SALVIAT, 
Aphrodite gardienne des magistrats, BCH 90 
(1966) 460-471; M. DETIENNE, Les jardins 
d'Adonis. La mythologie des aromates en 
Grèce (Paris 1972); L. DEUBNER, Attische 
Feste (Berlin 1932); L. R. FARNELL, The 
Cults of the Greek States, vol. 2 (Oxford 
1896) 618-761; J. FLEMBERG, Venus Arma- 
ta. Studien zur bewaffneten Aphrodite in der 
griechisch-rümischen Kunst  (Stockholm- 
Goteborg 1991); F. Grar, Women, War, 
and Warlike Divinities, ZPE 55 (1984) 245- 
254; A. LAUMONIER, Les cultes indigenes en 
Carie (Paris 1958); A. LEBESSI, To iero tou 
Ermi kai tis Aphroditis sti Symi Viannou, 


APIS 





vol. | (Athens 1985): F. Mora, Religione e 
religioni nelle storie di Erodoto (Milan 
1985); V. PIRENNE-DELFORGE, L’Aphrodite 
grecque. Contribution à l'étude de ses cultes 
et de sa personnalité dans le panthéon 
archalque et classique (Liége 1994); A. J. 
PrirFiG,. Religio Etrusca (Graz 1975); G. 
PICCALUGA, La ventura di amare una 
divinità, Minutal (Rome 1974) 9-35; R. 
SCHILLING, La religion romaine de Vénus 
(Paris 1954, repr. 1982); B. Servais-Sovez, 
Aphrodite Ouranie et le symbolisme de 
l'échelle. Un message venu d'Orient, Le 
mythe, son langage et son message. Actes du 
colloque de Liége et Louvain-la-Neuve 1981 
(ed. H. Limet & J. Ries; Louvain-la-Neuve 
1983) 191-208; H. A. SHAPIRO, Personi- 
fications in Greek Art. The Representation 
of Abstract Concepts 600-400 B.C. (Kilch- 
berg 1993); F. SoKoLowski, Aphrodite as 
Guardian of Greek Magistrates, HTR 57 
(1964) 1-8; C. SounviNou-INwoop, 'Read- 
ing' Greek Culture (Oxford 1991); M. L. 
WEST, The Orphic Poems (Oxford 1983); E. 
WIND, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance 
(Harmondsworth 1967). 


F. GRAF 


APIS 7j 

I. Apis, the sacred bull of Memphis, 
occurs in the LXX version of Jer 46:15 as 
the most prominent of Egypt’s gods whose 
flight is mocked by the prophet as a signal 
of the destruction about to befall Egypt by 
the hand of God. Most commentators and 
translators reconstruct Apis in the Hebrew 
text by a redivision and revocalisation of the 
MT nishap ‘is prostrated’ as nds hap ‘Apis 
has fled’. The LXX version would then be 
the correct rendering of a corrupt MT rather 
than Jewish polemics (cf. the -*Ibis in the 
LXX versions of Lev 11:17 and Deut 14:16) 
against the cult of Apis (S. MORENZ, Agyp- 
tische Spuren in den Septuaginta, Mullus 
[FS Theodor Klauser; eds. A. Stuiber & A. 
Hermann = JAC Erginzungsband 1; Münster 
1964] 250-258; Mussies 1978:831-832). A 
dubious instance is the name _ Eliaph 
(~Horeph) (Gk Eliaph), ‘my-god-is-Apis’, 


68 


found in the LXX version of 1 Kgs 4:3 (R. 
DE Vaux, Mélange, RB 48 [1939] 399). 

Spelled hap or hapf, Apis appears as a 
theophoric element in names found in Aram- 
aic, Phoenician and Neobabylonian texts 
(KAI 269, 272; cf. 268; MussiEs 1978:831; 
E. LipiNski, La stéle égypto-araméenne de 
Tumma’, CdE 50 [1975] 93-104; H. RANKE, 
Die ägyptischen Personennamen I: Ver- 
zeichnis der Namen [Gliickstadt 1935]). The 
Greek spelling "Amg, instead of the ex- 
pected "Anıç, has been understood as a case 
of psilosis, characteristic of the Ionian dia- 
lect (MuUSSIES 1978:830-831). Semitic and 
Greek spellings reflect Eg hp, Copt hape, 
hapi ‘Apis’, which has been tentatively 
explained as Ap, ‘the Runner’, referring to 
Apis’s cultic running to fertilize the fields 
(Orro 1964:11; cf. MARTIN 1984:786). 

II. Apis is the most famous of the sacred 
bulls of the Egyptians, kept at Memphis in a 
stall and worshipped there from the time of 
king Aha at the beginning of the First Dyn- 
asty (K. Simpson, A Running of the Apis in 
the Reign of ‘Aha and Passages in Manetho 
and Aelian, Or 26 [1957] 139-142) until the 
late 4th century CE. Throughout its history, 
the Apis cult has been a royal cult 
(MALAISE 1972:212, with references). As far 
back as the Old Kingdom qucens were linked 
to the cult of Apis (VANDIER 1949:234). 
The popularity of Apis during the Late 
Period is a secondary development. 

The divine nature of Apis is closely linked 
to fertility and regeneration. Since the pro- 
cesses of renewed life can be observed in 
numerous phenomena in the cosmos as well 
as on earth, Apis is associated with gods of 
rebirth and resurrection whose hidden cre- 
ative forces are revealed on earth by Apis as 
their visible manifestation. This relationship 
between Apis and these gods is expressed 
by the Egyptian term Ba (L. V. ZABKAR, 
Ba, LdA 1 [1975] 588-590). 

Apis represents -*Ptah, creator god of 
Memphis, who as a god of vegetation is 
sometimes called ‘Bull of the Earth’ and 
‘Great -*Nile'. Apis's title w/un Pth, ‘who 
repeats Ptah’, ‘Herald of Ptah’, has been 
explained by Orro (1964:24-26) and others 


APIS 


as referring to the bull’s well-known role as 
an oracle god. The title, however, seems to 
point to the fact that Apis reveals the power 
of Ptah's creative word (Eg hw) by bringing 
food (Eg Aw) and life into this world (J. 
ZANDEE, Das Schöpferwort im alten Agyp- 
ten, Verbum. Essays on Some Aspects of the 
Religious Function of Words Dedicated to 
Dr. H. W. Obbink [Utrecht 1964] 33-66). 
Indeed Apis is addressed as the noble Ba of 
Ptah. It should be noted that Apis’s stall is 
situated to the south of the temple of Ptah 
and that the embalming place of the bull is 
in the south-west comer of that vast temple 
complex. The obsequies of Apis are carried 
out by the pricsts of Ptah, not by the bull's 
own priests. 

Since the 18th Dynasty (from 1550 BCE), 
the period in which the sun doctrine was 
elaborated by Egyptian theologians, Apis 
had been associated with --Atum, the even- 
ing appearance of the sun god, who rises 
from the earth in the form of a scarab beetle 
(= khepri), image of the rejuvenated sun 
god, to create light, life and vegetation in a 
cyclic process. Up to Roman times, Apis is 
depicted (KATER-SIBBES & WVERMASEREN 
1975: I nos. 78, 82-84) with a sun disc and 
uracus between the horns and on his back a 
hawk and a winged scarab beetle as symbols 
of the sun. The white triangle on Apis’s 
brow is perhaps a solar symbol (M. J. VEn- 
MASEREN & C. C. VAN ESSEN, The Excava- 
tions in the Mithraeum of the Church of 
Santa Prisca {Leiden 1965] 344-346). The 
fact that Apis is called many-coloured (Gk 
poikilos: Lucian, Deorum Concil. 10; cf. 
Macrobius, Saturn. 1.21) also points to the 
god's solar nature (J. ASSMANN, Liturgische 
Lieder an den Sonnengott [MAS 19; Berlin 
1969] 171). According to Classical writers 
Apis has a wart (2 scarab beetle) under his 
tongue (Herodotus, Hist. 3.28; Pliny. Nat. 
hist. 8.184). During the funeral of Apis solar 
rites play a major role (Vos 1993:40). 

Apis is also dedicated to the —moon 
which was conceived of as a large bull (CT 
V1L.25h.35a and P. DERCHAIN, Mythes et 
dieux lunaires en Egypte, La lune, mythes et 
rites (SO 5; Paris 1962] 17-68, 50). It is 


69 


uncertain whether the relationship between 
Apis and -*Thoth, god of the moon, can be 
traced back to the beginning of Egyptian 
history as has been stated by HERMANN 
(1960:39 n. 46; cf. MARTIN 1984:786, with 
n. 52; W. HELCK, Zu den “Talbezirken” in 
Abydos, MDAIK 28 [1972] 95-99). In fact, 
Apis's lunar aspects became especially 
prominent in the Roman period. From the 
18th Dynasty onwards the moon was vener- 
ated in the Memphite necropolis (ZIEGLER 
1988:441-449) and a famous temple of 
Thoth is adjacent to that of Apis (M. GuiL- 
MoT, Le Sarapieion de Memphis - Etude 
topographique, CdE 37 [1962] 359-38], 
370-371. 379, 381). The so-called Apis- 
period of 25 years, which is said to be the 
lifespan of Apis, is of an obvious lunar natu- 
re, since at the end of that period the 
moonphases return on the same day (VER- 
COUTTER 1975:346). In Roman times Apis is 
depicted with the moon between the horns 
and a mark in the shape of the waxing moon 
on his right or, in rare cases, his left side 
(GniMM 1968:20-24; KATER-SiBBES & VER- 
MASEREN 1975: Il nos. 272, 283, 290, 350). 
The waxing moon was considered to bring 
the inundation and fertility to the land (P. 
DERCHAIN, Mythes et dieux lunaires en 
Egypte, La lune, mythes et rites [SO 5; Paris 
1962] 34). Apis's cultic running to fertilize 
the fields seems to be related to the phases 
of the moon and the annual flooding of the 
Nile (MARTIN 1984:784). Shortly after his 
birth, when the moon was waxing, Apis 
visited the House of the Inundation of the 
Nile (Nilopolis; Otto 1964:16), and at his 
death priests of that same House were in- 
volved in the obsequies as a sign of the 
god’s rejuvenation (Vos 1993:164). Apis 
was enthroned at full moon and he played a 
part in the King's accession rites which took 
place at full moon (M.-T. DERCHAIN- 
UnrttL, Thronbesteigung, LdÀ 6 [1986] 529- 
532). 

Because of his lunar nature and his rela- 
tion to the inundation, Apis was casily asso- 
ciated with -*Osiris Lunatus (ZIEGLER 
1988:447-449), who is called k? mpy, ‘Bull 
rejuvenating (in the sky)’ (QUAEGEBEUR 


APIS 


1983:31). Osiris played an important role in 
Memphis (VANDIER 1961:112-113). As a 
god of vegetation Osiris was identified with 
the Nile and the life-giving inundation 
(VANDIER 1949:59). Apis is sometimes 
associated with the Canopic jars containing 
the holy water of the Nile emanating from 
Osiris (KATER-SIBBES & VERMASEREN 1975: 
I] nos. 296-297, 536). 

Best known is Apis’s association with 
Osiris in his capacity of the funeral god. 
Apis is basically black in colour and Osiris 
is sometimes called ‘Bull of the West’ or 
‘Big black Bull’. Apis is identified with 
-*Horus, son of Osiris (VANDIER 1949:235). 
A few bronzes show Apis with a bird 
behind the horns, which could point to the 
falcon ->Horus (KATER-SIBBES & VERMASE- 
REN 1975: II nos. 303, 568; cf. 489, 535, 
562). The bull is sometimes represented as 
the young Horus, fed by -*Isis to obtain 
eterna] youth (QUAEGEBEUR 1983:31; 
KATER-SIBBES & VERMASEREN 1975: | nos. 
101, 112, 117). In the Memphite Serapeum 
Isis is often the Mother of Apis (H. S. 
SmitH & D. G. JEFFREYS, The Sacred Ani- 
mal Necropolis, North Saqqára: 1975/76, 
JEA 63 [1977] 20-28, 23). This relationship 
between Isis and Apis became a prominent 
feature of the Hellenized Isis cult and was 
often depicted on coins. As a manifestation 
of Horus (or Anubis) Apis assists Isis in col- 
lecting and transporting the limbs of the 
deceased (= Osiris) from the West to the 
East, the place of resurrection, in a ritual 
running which can be paralleled with the 
life-giving running of Apis to fertilize the 
fields (M. Samı GABRA, Un sarcophage de 
Touna, ASAE 28 [1928] 77; VANDIER 1961: 
117-120). During this ritual running the bull 
is sometimes depicted wearing the menat, a 
beaded necklace sacred to -*Hathor, which 
brings new life and wards off any evil that 
might endanger it (QUAEGEBEUR 1983:17- 
39). Apis is associated with —Bes, dwarf- 
god of fertility, who protects women and 
babies (KATER-SIBBES & VERMASEREN 1975: 
I nos. 65, 91, 99-100). 

Upon his death Apis becomes Osiris-Apis 
and he is embalmed after the example of 


70 


Osiris in a 70-day process. He is buried in 
an underground vault of the Serapeum, the 
burial place of the Apis bulls west of 
Memphis. The Vienna Apis Embalming 
Ritual (2nd century BCE) describes burial 
rites in which, according to theological con- 
ceptions of the Late Period, solar and Osir- 
ian rites of resurrection are interwoven. This 
fits in with Apis’s complex nature which is 
closely connected with vegetative and cos- 
mic phenomena of renewed life. The Egypt- 
ians express Apis’s comprehensive being by 
assimilating him in a syncretistic way to 
composite divinities like Osiris-Atum-Horus, 
Ptah-Ré°-Horsiesis and Ptah-Osiris-Sokaris. 

In the Late Period Apis worship took on 
the form of a national cult. It has been sug- 
gested that during this period of foreign rule 
the Egyptians tried to maintain their cultural 
identity by turning to their animal gods, the 
worship of which was repugnant to foreign- 
ers (SMELIK & HEMELRIUK 1984:1863-1864). 
For political reasons the Ptolemaic Kings 
favoured the popular cult of Apis. Ptolemy I 
Soter tried to reconcile Egyptian and Greek 
religions by introducing the god Sarapis 
(Osiris-Apis) but the cult was so heavily 
Hellenized that up to the Roman period it 
failed to arouse much interest among native 
Egyptians. A few rare examples show Apis 
with the sun disc between the homs and 
instead of the uracus a modius, emblem of 
fertility of Sarapis (KATER-SiBBES & VER- 
MASEREN 1975: ] nos. 43, 120). 

Generally speaking, Roman religious 
policy was less favourably inclined towards 
Apis, although a number of Alexandrian 
coins, from Nero to Commodus, bear a 
figure of Apis represented as a bull (HER- 
MANN 1960:38). From Delos, Apis was 
imported in -*Rome, not as a separate deity 
but as part of the rapidly growing cults of 
Isis and Sarapis (GRIMM 1968: 25-26; 
SMELIK & HEMELRUK 1984:1920, n. 424). 
Numerous statuettes of Apis, including a 
few rare ones representing Apis in human 
form, but with a bull’s head and clothed as a 
Roman emperor (Apis imperator), have been 
found all over Europe. The Apis imperator 
was perhaps a symbol of divine power 


APIS 


rather than a defender of Osiris against the 
crimes of Seth (S. MonENZ, Die Begeg- 
nung Europas mit Agypten [Zürich/Stuttgart 
1969] 200-201, n. 81 and 82). In Greck texts 
from Brahlia in Syria (1st-2nd centuries CE) 
Apis was associated with ->Zeus-El-Kronos 
and perhaps incorporated in the cults of the 
Dea Roma and the Emperor (Y. HAJJAR. 
Dieux et cultes non Héliopolitains de la 
Béqa', ANRW 1l 18,4 [1990] 2554-2555, 
2579). 

III. Apis frequently appears in the works 
of Christian writers. In their polemics 
against the most popular representative of 
Egyptian animal worship these writers 
reflect the OT rejection of animal cult (Exod 
8:26; cf. Exod Rabbah 16.3). It is not sur- 
prising then that the Christian writers asso- 
ciate Apis with the Golden -Calf (SMELIK 
& HEMELRUK 1984:1918 n. 412; 1995 n. 
929) whose cult is called the Egyptian dis- 
ease (Basilius Seleucensis, Orat. 6.3). Jc- 
rome, in Oseam 10.4 (cf. Cyrillus Alexan- 
drinus, in Oseam 5.8.9 and F. M. ABEL, La 
géographie sacrée chez S. Cyrille d'Alexan- 
drice, RB 31 [1922] 408-409), identifies the 
two golden calves of 1 Kgs 12:25, one of 
which Jeroboam placed in Bethel and the 
other in Dan, with Apis, the bull of Ptah in 
Memphis, and Mnevis, the bull of -*Re in 
Heliopolis (P. GALPAz, The Reign of Jero- 
beam and the Extent of Egyptian Influences, 
BN 60 [1991] 13-19, 18). Also according to 
Egyptian sources of the Ptolemaic period, 
these bull-gods were closely connected and 
they regularly visited each other. Although 
the equation of Apis and the Golden Calf 
cannot be accepted, the Christian writers 
often gave important factual information 
concerning Apis for which they drew heavi- 
ly on what they had learned from Graeco- 
Roman literature. The role of Apis as a god 
of fertility has not been forgotten (Rufinus, 
Hist. mon. 7; cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.85; 
Ammianus Marcellinus 22.14). Augustine, 
Civ. Dei 18.4 rightly differentiates between 
Apis and Sarapis and he knows of the rela- 
tionship between Isis and Apis, her godly 
companion (Confess. 8.2; cf. P. COURCELLE, 
Sur un passage énigmatique des Confessions 


71 


de Saint Augustin, REL 29 [1951] 295-307). 
The Church-father (Civ. Dei 18.5), however, 
fancifully explained the name of Sarapis as 
meaning 'coffin of Apis', thus following a 
tradition according to which Apis was a 
king of the Argives (cf. Bibliothéque Augu- 
stinienne 36 [1960] 747-748, with many 
references). 

The physical features of Apis are 
mentioned by several authors: his black 
colour, the inverted white triangle on his 
forehead and the white markings on his skin 
(Augustine, Civ. Dei 18.3.5; Cyrillus 
Alexandrinus, im Oseam 3.56; Eudocia, 
Violar. 8.15: Rufinus. Hist. eccles. 2.23; cf. 
the numerous passages in Classical writers 
cited by HOPFNER 1913:78). 

The lunar aspects of Apis are often re- 
ferred to. Apis was miraculously generated 
by the light of the moon (Cosmas Hierosol., 
Conunent. ad Greg. Nazianz 270; Theo- 
doretus, Curatio 3.46; Eudocia, Violar 8.15; 
cf. Plutarch, de Isid. 43, 368C; Suda s.v. 
"Amig) There seems to be no genuine 
Egyptian evidence for the procreation of 
Apis by the moon (BONNET 1952:50), al- 
though FAULKNER strongly believed to have 
found it in CT 1I.209a (R. O. FAULKNER, 
The pregnancy of Isis, JEA 54 [1968] 40-44; 
FAULKNER, "The pregnancy of Isis", a 
Rejoinder, JEA 59 [1973] 218-219). Accord- 
ing to Cyrillus Alexandrinus, in Oseam 
3.56; 10.3 (cf. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 
3.13; Ammianus Marcellinus 22.14). the 
cosmic parents of Apis are the sun and the 
moon. 

The birth of an Apis occurs at intervals 
and is attended by great public joy (Eudocia, 
Violar. 8.15; cf. Herodotus 3.27; J. Ver- 
COUTTER, Une Epitaphe Royale Inédite du 
Sérapéum, MDAIK 16 [1958] 333-345, 344). 
The obsequies entailed lavish expense 
(Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39; cf. Dio- 
dorus Siculus 1.84) and led to the diligent 
searching up and down the country for his 
successor (Augustine, Civ. Dei 18.5). 

Some Christian writers seemingly make 
an exception to the rule that Apis is not 
positively assessed (SMELIK & HEMELRUK 
1984:1982). Clemens Alexandrinus (Coh. 


APKALLU 


2.34; Protrept. 2.39) is of the opinion that 
Apis is to be preferred to the adulterous 
gods of the Greeks, and Tertullian (Monog. 
18; Exhort. cast. 13; leiunio 9.2) makes the 
priests of Apis an example of chastity (P. 
COURCELLE, L'oracle d'Apis et l'oracle du 
jardin de Milan (Augustin, "Conf.", VIII, 
11, 29), RHR 139 [1951] 216-231, 227). It 
is also remarkable that Christian writers 
often sharply disapprove of the murder of 
Apis by Cambyses (SMELIK & HEMELRIJK 
1984:1865, 1868). The story is contrary to 
Egyptian evidence, although the king did 
make drastic reductions in the state contri- 
butions to the temples. 

In 391 cE the pious emperor Theodosius 
abruptly closed all pagan temples and or- 
dered the destruction. of the Alexandrian 
Serapeum, which must have deeply affected 
Christians and pagans alike (Augustine, De 
Divin. Daemon. l.l; cf. A. D. NOCK, Augus- 
tine and the prophecy of the destruction of 
the Serapeum, VC 3 [1949] 56). Theodosius’ 
actions almost certainly put an end to the 
cult of Apis as well. Perhaps the last bull of 
this kind is mentioned by Ammianus Mar- 
cellinus 22.14 and praised by Claudian, 
pagan poct at thc Christian court of Ravenna 
(HERMANN 1960:44-46). 

IV. Bibliography 
H. Bonnet, Apis, RARG (Berlin/New York 
19712) 46-51; G. Grimm, Eine verschollene 
Apisstatuette aus Mainz, ZAS 95 (1968) 17- 
36; J. HANI, La religion égyptienne dans la 
pensée de Plutarque (Paris 1976) 622-632, 
837-838; A. HERMANN, Der letzte Apisstier, 
JAC 3 (1960) 34-50; T. HoPFNER. Der Tier- 
kult der alten Agypter (Vienna 1913); G. J. 
F. KATER-SIBBES & M. J. VERMASEREN, 
Apis 1-II] (EPRO 48/1-III; Leiden 1975- 
1977); K. MARTIN, Sedfest, LdA 5 (1984) 
782-790; M. MaLaisE, Les conditions de 
pénétration et de diffusion des cultes égyp- 
tiens en Italie (EPRO 22; Leiden 1972); G. 
MussiEs, Some Notes on the Name of Sara- 
pis, Hommage à Maarten J. Vermaseren 
(eds. M. den Boer er al.; EPRO 68/1; Lei- 
den 1978) 831-832; E. OTTO, Beiträge zur 
Geschichte der Stierkulte in Ägypten (Hil- 
desheim 1964); J. QUAEGEBEUR, Apis et la 


menat, BSFE 98 (1983) 17-39; K. A. D. 
SMELIK & E. A. HEMELRUK, “Who Knows 
Not What Monsters Demented Egypt Wor- 
ships?”, Opinions on Egyptian Animal 
Worship in Antiquity as Part of the Ancient 
Conception of Egypt, ANRW II 17,4 (Berlin/ 
New York 1984) 1852-2000; J. WANDIER, 
Memphis et le taureau Apis dans le papyrus 
Jumilhac, Mélanges Mariette (IFAO 32; 
Cairo 1961) 105-123; VANDIER, La religion 
égyptienne (Paris 1949) 233-237; J. VER- 
COUTTER, Apis, LdÀ | (1975) 338-350; R. 
L. Vos, 7he Apis Embalming Ritual. P. 
Vindob. 3873 (OLA 50; Leuven 1993); C. 
ZIEGLER, Les Osiris-lunes du Sérapéum de 
Memphis, Akten des Vierten Internationalen 
Agyptologen-Kongresses Miinchen 1985, Il: 
Linguistik - Philologie - Religion (ed. S. 
Schoske; SAK Beih. 3; Hamburg 1989) 
441-451. 


R. L. Vos 


APKALLU 

I. In Mesopotamian religion, the term 
apkallu (Sum abgal) is used for the legend- 
ary creatures endowed with extraordinary 
-*wisdom. Seven in number, they are the 
culture -*heroes from before the Flood. 
Some of the mythological speculations in 
which they figure have exerted influence on 
certain biblical and post-biblical traditions. 
Examples are the figure of Enoch and the 
tale of the Nephilim (Gen 6:1-4). 

H. Akk apkallu is derived from Sum 
abgal, a term used in the 3rd millennium for 
a high official. In the Sumerian incantations 
of the Old Babylonian period abgal refers to 
a sage at the court of Enki. Based on a tradi- 
tion that goes back to the 3rd millennium, 
the term apkallu is used for legendary crea- 
tures endowed with wisdom, seven in num- 
ber, who existed before the flood. In the 
myth of the ‘Twenty-one Poultices’ the 
‘seven apkalli of Eridu’, who are also 
called the ‘seven apkalli of the Apsu’, are 
at the service of Ea (Enki). Ea is called the 
‘sage among the gods’ (apkallu ili) and the 
title was also used of his son ^Marduk. A 
variety of wisdom traditions from the ante- 


72 


APKALLU 


diluvian period were supposedly passed on 
by the apkallii. We learn from the ‘Etio- 
logical Myth of the Seven Sages’ that the 
apkallii were “of human descent, whom the 
lord Ea has endowed with wisdom”. The 
tradition of the apkallà is preserved in the 
bit-méseri ritual serics and also by Berossus. 
The seven sages were created in the river 
and served as “those who ensured the cor- 
rect functioning of the plans of heaven and 
earth" (mustésini usurdt Samé u erseti). Fol- 
lowing the example of Ea, they taught man- 
kind wisdom, social forms and craftsman- 
ship. The authorship of texts dealing with 
omens, magic and other categories of ‘wis- 
dom’ such as medicine is attributed to the 
seven apkalli. Gilgamesh, “who saw every- 
thing” (§a nagba imuru), is credited with 
having brought back knowledge whose ori- 
gin was before the flood (3a lam abübi) and 
on a cylinder seal he is called “master of the 
apkalli". ]n the course of the development 
of the traditions concerning them, the seven 
apkalli became associated with laying the 
foundations of the seven ancient cities: 
Eridu, Ur, Nippur, Kullab, Kesh, Lagash 
and Shuruppak. In the epic of Gilgamesh 
they are called ‘counsellors’ (»nuntalki) and 
all of the seven sages were considered 
responsible for laying the foundations of 
Uruk (Gilg. I 9; XI 305). According to the 
Erra epic, the apkalli returned to the Apsu, 
the great abyss which was the home of Ea, 
and were never again within reach. 

Uanna of Eridu, the first of the seven 
apkallà who served the early kings, was 
considered the master of a great store of 
knowledge. In some texts Adapa, a human 
sage who lived at that time and who bears 
the epithet apkallu, is assimilated to him. 
Adapa is at times called the son of Ea, but 
this refers to his being wise, rather than to 
his parentage. In tum the name Adapa be- 
came synonymous with wisdom. Oannes, in 
the late tradition transmitted by Berossus, 
“emerged daily from the Erythrean Sea in 
the time of the first king of history to teach 
mankind the arts of civilization”. He is 
credited with giving man knowledge of 
letters and science and all types of crafts. 


73 


Not only were highly qualified diviners 
given the title apkallu, but it was also popu- 
lar among the late Assyrian kings. Sen- 
nacherib brags of having been given knowl- 
edge equal to that of the apkallu Adapa (D. 
D. LUCKENBILL. The Annals of Sennacherib 
[OIP 2: Chicago 1924] 117:4). Ashurbani- 
pal, proud of his mastery of the skills of the 
Scribe, boasted of having grasped "the craft 
of the apkallu Adapa, the esoteric secret of 
the entire scribal tradition" (M. STRECK, 
Assurbanipal und die letzten Assyrischen 
Könige [VAB 7; Leipzig 1916] 254:13; 367: 
13). He is called the offspring of both an 
apkallu (Sennacherib) and Adapa (Esarhad- 
don) by one of his haruspices (ABL 923; 
LAS 117). It was probably in the neo-Assyr- 
ian period that the title apkallu spread to the 
Arameans and also to the Arabian tribes. In 
the Nabatean, Palmyrcan and Hatrene in- 
scriptions it is a sort of priest. Apkallatu 
occurs as the personal name of a queen of 
the Arabs in an inscription of Esarhaddon. 
In the Early South Arabian inscriptions "fk! 
is also a priest (cf. J. TEixiDOR, Notes 
hatréennes 3: Le titre d’ “aphkala”, Syria 43 
[1966] 91-93, and J. Rycxmans, JSS 25 
[1980] 199 n. 3). 

The postdiluvian sages were called 
ummánu, a term which indicates mastery of 
a difficult subject, or being highly trained in 
a craft. Various literary works are attributed 
to specific uminánü and in the late period 
the ummánü functioned as the counsellors of 
the realm. The apkallū were also the keepers 
of esoteric lore which then became the 
prized possession of the umundni. In a tablet 
from the Seleucid period found during the 
excavations at Uruk the antediluvian apkalli 
and the postdiluvian wmmdnii are listed in 
conjunction with the kings whom they 
served. Thus Uanna (Oannes) is the apkallu 
of Aialu (elsewhere Alulu) the first king, 
and the list ends with Aba’enlildari, whom 
the Arameans call Ahiqar, the umrmánu of 
king Esarhaddon. 

In a variety of rituals, clay figurines of 
the seven apkalli were used with an apo- 
tropaic function. There were three types of 
apkallà, the seven anthropomorphic ümu- 


APOLLO 


apkallii, placed at the head of the bed of the 
sick ‘person, the seven bird-apkallit buried 
against the wall, but in an adjoining room, 
and the seven fish-apkalli, who guard the 
threshold of the bedroom, with two further 
groups of fish-apkalli, buried in front and 
behind the chair kept in the room. The ümu- 
apkallà were made of wood, but the bird- 
and fish-apkallit were made of —clay. The 
fish-apkallit are the best known since the 
fish-garbed men have been found in excava- 
tions in groups of seven (e.g. Nimrud). 
Their use is detailed in a variety of rituals. 
The fish-apkalli must be distinguished from 
the kulull@, a centaur-like fish-man. These 
apkallü arc also found on wall-panels in 
Assyrian palaces or with apotropaic function 
flanking the doorways of temples and 
palaces. Berossus described Oannes as having 
the body of a fish, a human head below the 
fish head and human feet below the tail. 

III. The tradition. of the seven sages 
spread during the 2nd and 1st millennium to 
the West, reaching as far as Greece. It has 
been proposed that the tale of the 
—Nephilim, alluded to in Gen 6:1-4, is 
based on some of the negative aspects of the 
apkallü tradition. An echo of the role of the 
seven apkallit may be found in Prov 9:1 
which should in all likelihood be rendered 
"-Wisdom built her house, the Seven set its 
pillars" instead of the traditional translation 
"Wisdom built her house, she set out its 
seven pillars”. Enoch, who was the "first 
among the children of men who had learned 
writing, science and wisdom” (Jub. 4:17), 
and taught knowledge to mankind was the 
seventh starting with Adam (Jub. 7:39). His 
ascension to -*heaven is in all likelihood 
based on the tale of the seventh antediluvian 
apkallu Utuabzu who ascended to heaven 
according to the third tablet of the bit méseri 
series. The later tradition, preserved by 
pseudo-Philo, of Enoch building seven 
cities, may hark back to the seven ante- 
- diluvian cities noted above. The images of 
the seven patriarchs found on the throne of 
Solomon, the embodiment of Wisdom, may 
also have its origin in the myth of the seven 
sages. 


IV. Bibliography 

J. BLACK & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and 
Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London 
1992) 82-83; 100-101, 163-164; R. BORGER, 
Die Beschwórungsserie bit méseri und die 
Himmelfahrt Henochs, JNES 33 (1974) 183- 
196; S. M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of 
Berossus (Malibu 1978) 13-14; J. J. A. VAN 
Duk, La sagesse suméro-accadienne (Lei- 
den 1953) 20 n. 56; A. GREEN, Neo-Assyr- 
ian Apotropaic Figures, /rag 45 (1983) 87- 
96; J. C. GREENFIELD, The Seven Pillars of 
Wisdom (Prov 9:1)—a Mistranslation, JQR 
86 (1985) 13-20; A. D. KiLMER, The Mes- 
opotamian Counterparts of the Biblical 
Nepilim, Perspectives on Language and 
Text, Essays and Poems in Honor of F. 1. 
Andersen (Winona Lake 1987) 39-43; W. G. 
LAMBERT, The Twenty-One "Poultices", 
AnSt 30 (1980) 77-83; S. PARPOLA, Letters 
from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars 
(SAA 10; Helsinki 1993) xvii-xxiv; S. A. 
Piccioni, Il poemetto di Adapa (Budapest 
1981); E. REINER, The Etiological Myth of 
the ‘Seven Sages’, OrNS 30 (1961) 1-11; F. 
A, M. WIGGERMANN, Mesopotamian Pro- 
tective Spirits, The Ritual Texts (Groningen 
1992) 73-79. 


J. C. GREENFIELD 


APOLLO 'AnzóXXaov 

l. Apollo is a Greek god whose name 
occurs as a theophoric element in the names 
"AnóAAoS (Acts 18:24, var. lect.: 'AngAAnge. 
'AnoXAoviog [of which Apollos is a diminu- 
tive]; 19:1, var. lect.: ‘Anes. 1 Cor 1:12; 
3:4, 5, 6, 22; 4:6; 16:12 and Titus 3:13). 
'AngAAng (Rom 16:10), 'AnoAAovia (Acts 
17:1. var. lect. 'AnoXAovio), and 'AnoJA. oov 
(Rev 9:11). 

II. Apollo is the most typical divine 
representative of classical Greek culture, the 
Greek god par excellence, though there is 
no doubt that he was of non-Greek origin. 
The two cult centres of Apollo, Delos and 
Delphi, date from the cighth century BCE. 
The Delos sanctuary was primarily devoted 
to Artemis, Apollo’s twin sister according 
to the myth (BurKERT 1977:226). At Delphi 


74 


APOLLO 


Apollo was considered an intruder by the 
Greeks themselves: it was there that he 
killed the snake -*Python, the son of 
-"'Earth' and the Lord of that place (Homi. 
Hymn 3:182-387; see FoNTENROSE 1950:13- 
27 for five different versions of this myth) 
and had to leave Delphi again in scarch of 
purification (int. al. Pausanias 2:7.7). The 
attempts to locate his origin in a specific 
region, especially the North-East of Europe 
or Asia Minor (Gurumig 1950:73-87), 
proved unsuccessful because of the lack of 
conclusive evidence: (the once promising 
alleged Hittite god Apulunas disappeared 
thanks to a better decipherment of the Hittite 
hieroglyphs [BURKERT 1975:2-4}). Of the 
many etymological explanations which have 
been proposed for the name Apollo 
(WERNICKE 1896:2-3; NiLSSON 1955:555- 
559; FAurH 1975:441-442) none has found 
general acceptance. However, following a 
suggestion by HARRISON (1927), BURKERT 
has again pointed out that there is a close 
connection with the name of the month 
Apellaios and the institution of the apellai 
(BURKERT 1975). In epic literature and at 
Delos and Delphi the god’s name is always 
spelled Apollon. In the Doric dialect we find 
Apellón and on Cyprus Apeilón, in Thessaly 
Aploun. At the beginning of the present era 
the form Apollén had almost completely 
superseded the Doric form Apellón, but the 
latter was certainly the older one: the spel- 
ling with o has to be taken as a secondary 
vocal assimilation to the ending -oón. The 
month Apellaios and the apellai are also 
found in the whole Doric region. In Delphi 
Apellaios was the first month of the year, in 
which the apellai were held. The apellai 
were annual meetings in which tribal asso- 
ciations or communities purified themselves 
from ritual and spiritual contaminations, and 
in which the new members of the commu- 
nity, the Ephebi, were initiated. The god 
Apellon/Apollén may have derived his name 
from the apellai. He was ‘the arch-ephebos’ 
(HARRISON 1927:441), the true kouros. 
Apollo was considered the author of evil 
and its averter as well (a) the god of 
purification, law and order (b) and the god 


75 


of prophecy (c). These three aspects deserve 
a brief discussion. 

(a) The beginning of the /liad introduces 
Apollo as the frightening god who sends a 
deadly pestilence into the cattle and the 
army of the Achacans. One of the oldest 
etymologies of Apollo’s name is its deriv- 
ation. from apollymi/apollyé (Aeschylus, 
Agam. 1081; Euripides, frg. 781, 11; sec 
WERNICKE 1896:2). But the author of the 
disease is also the onc who can stop it; to 
that end onc has to propitiate Apollo by 
means of sacrifices, hymns and prayers 
(NiLSSON 1955:538-544), as was in fact 
done by the Achaeans (/liad 1:48-52, 450- 
456). In the second and third centuries CE, 
this way of propitiating the god to avert a 
plague was still advised by Apollo himself 
in several oracles given at Clarus and Didy- 
ma (R. LANE Fox, Pagans and Christians 
[New York 1987] 231-235). Similarly ambiva- 
lent gods, said to be both the causc of cvil 
and of its disappearance, are found all over 
the world; in India, it is the god Rudra who 
shows a remarkable similarity to Apollo 
(LORENZ 1988:4, 8). 

(b) Apollo was gencrally held to be the 
giver and interpreter of laws and city consti- 
tutions (GUTHRIE 1950:182-204; NILSSON 
1955:625-653). In cities like Athens and 
Sparta there were official interpreters of 
civil and religious law who were closely 
related to the Delphic oracle, which enabled 
Apollo (and Delphi) to exercise a consider- 
able influence on the internal affairs of the 
Greek city states. A special duty of the 
exegetai concemed advise on the rules of 
purification in cases of homicide (e.g. Plato, 
Laws 11, 916c; [Demosthenes], Orat. 47, 
68). Murder inevitably brings pollution 
(miasma) on the killer, even if the latter has 
acted in self-defence, and therefore he is in 
need of purification (katharsis). Apollo, who 
according to the myth had to be purified 
himself after the killing of Python, remained 
the Greek god of purification (R. PARKER, 
Miasma [Oxford 1983] 275-276, 378, 393), 
although in the course of the centuries he 
changed his views from prescribing a ven- 
detta to regulating legal jurisdiction over 


APOLLO 


homicide (Orestes on the Areopagus under- 
went “the first trial for bloodshed,” accord- 
ing to Aeschylus, Eumen, 683). It was prob- 
ably his character as god of law and order 
which caused Apollo's identification with 
the sun, that "sees and hears all things" 
(Homer, /liad:3, 277). His name Phoibos, 
from which the name Phoebe derives (Rom 
16:3), has often been interpreted as ‘Shi- 
ning’; its precise meaning, however, is un- 
known (FAUTH 1975:442; BURKERT 1975:14 
n. 56). The legal aspect of Helios Apollo is 
clearly brought out in a number of inscrip- 
tions concerning *manumissions' of children 
and confessions of guilt from the temple of 
Apollo at Lairbenos in Phrygia, near Helio- 
polis, dating from the 2nd and 3rd centuries 
CE (MAMA IV, 275-278; MiLLER 1985). 
(c) Apollo was an oracle-speaking god 
from the beginning. His sanctuary at Delphi 
became the most influential political and 
religious centre of the Greek world (NILS- 
SON 1955:], 544-547, 625-653; for its his- 
tory PARKE & WORMELL 1956:]). Apollo 
responded to questions on regulations of 
communal life, of which religion was an 
integral part, on wars and their outcome, the 
founding of colonies, etc. Also individuals 
came to Delphi with personal and some- 
times rather trivial questions, though the 
evidence for this kind of oracle is quite 
scarce (614 responses in PARKE & Wor- 
MELL 1956:ll; a critical classification in 
FONTENROSE 1978:240-416). The oracles 
were given by a woman, the Pythia, who 
was seated on the tripod. What exactly hap- 
pened during the mantic sessions is almost 
completely unknown. The traditional picture 
holds that the tripod was placed above a 
chasm from which vapours ascended which 
brought the Pythia into a state of frenzy or 
trance, in which she uttered wild shouts 
which had to be interpreted. by the 
prophétés. But the cvidence to support this 
view is too scanty (FoNTENROSE 1978:196- 
232). After a short period of revived oracu- 
lar activity in the second century CE Apollo 
almost completely relapsed into silence (see, 
however, the response to Amelius' question 
as to where Plotinus’ soul had gone [ca. 


76 


260), Porphyry, Vita Plotini 22; Parke & 
WORMELL 1956:II 92-193 [nr. 473}; Fon- 
TENROSE 1978:264-265 [H. 69], who conjec- 
tures that Amelius only sought Apollo’s 
approval of his own poem on his beloved 
master). 

In Asia Minor, there were two other great 
oracular sanctuaries of Apollo, at Didyma 
and Clarus (sce R. Lane Fox, Pagans and 
Christians [New York 1987] 168-261, 711- 
727). The method of consultation at both 
sanctuaries is for the greater part unknown 
(lamblichus' report on the mantic pro- 
cedures at both sites, De myst. 3.11, reflects 
the final stage of Apollo's oracular practice, 
and possibly also the author's own inter- 
ests). Clarus had a prophet and Didyma a 
prophetess who uttered Apollo's responses 
after drinking from an underground spring 
(Clarus) or inhaling the vapors which camc 
from a surface spring in the sanctuary 
(Didyma) The oracles were put into neat 
metrical verse by the thespode, the 'singer 
of oracles' (Clarus) or a prophet (Didyma). 
The consultations of Apollo, by cities and 
individuals alike, did not substantially differ 
from those at Delphi or those of Zeus at 
Dodona (VAN DEN BROEK 1981:4-7). Of the 
known oracular responses, 39 have been 
ascribed to Clarus and 93 to Didyma 
(ROBINSON 1981; see also FONTENROSE 
1978:417-429 [50 responses from Didyma)), 
but in many cases the place of origin 
remains uncertain. An interesting group of 
the oracles from Clarus and Didyma in the 
2nd and 3rd centuries is formed by the so- 
called ‘theological oracles’, which express 
the view that there is only one highest god 
whose servants or manifestations are the 
gods of the traditional religions. Of these 
oracles the one found at Oenoanda has 
received most attention (ROBERT 197]; VAN 
DEN  BnokK  1981:9-]17; Lane Fox 
1987:168-171), but a thorough study of the 
theology of all of them remains a desidera- 
tum. In the 3rd century Apollo fell silent. 
Julian the Apostate (359-361) tried to revive 
the Delphic oracle but the attempt failed 
(PARKE & WoRMELL 1956: 289-290; II 
194-195, no. 476). 


APOLLYON — ARCHAI 


III. The popularity of Apollo is reflected 
in the frequency of theophoric personal 
names and toponyms: Apollodorus, Apollo- 
nia, Apollonius, Apollonides, Apollophanes, 
Apollos, etc. Apart from the NT passages 
mentioned above (sub I), we find such 
names also in the books of the Maccabees 
and in early Christian literature (see e.g. the 
Christian presbyter Apollonius in Ignatius, 
Magn. 2:1). Christian polemic against 
Apollo directed itself especially at his oracu- 
lar sites (D. DETSCHEW, RAC 1 [1950] 528- 
529), but nonetheless in some places his cult 
survived as late as the sixth century CE. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. BREMMER, Greek Religion (Oxford 1994) 
15-17; R. VAN DEN BROEK, Apollo in Asia. 
De Orakels van Clarus en Didyma in de 
tweede en derde eeuw na Chr. (Leiden 
1981); W. BURKERT, Griechische Religion 
der archaischen und klassischen Epoche 
(Stuttgart 1977) 225-233; BURKERT, Apellai 
und Apollon, RhMus 118 (1975) 1-21; W. 
FAurH, Apollon, KP I (München 1975) 
441-448; J. FONTENROSE, Python. A Study 
of Delphic Myth and its origins (Berkeley, 
Los Angeles, London 1950); FONTENROSE, 
The Delphic Oracle: Its Responses and Op- 
erations, with a Catalogue of Responses 
(Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1978); W. 
K. C. GUTHRIE, The Greeks and their Gods 
(London 1950; reprinted, with corrections, 
Boston 1954); J. E. HARRISON, Themis. A 
Study of the Social Origins of Greek Reli- 
gion (Cambridge 1927, 2nd ed.) 439-444; 
G. LonENZ, Apollon—Asklepios—Hygicia. 
Drci Typen von Heilgóttern in der Sicht der 
Vergleichende Religionsgeschichte, Saecu- 
lum 39 (1988) 1-11; K. M. MILLER, Apollo 
Lairbenos, Numen 32 (1985) 47-70; M. P. 
NILSSON, Geschichte der griechischen Re- 
ligion, I (München 1955); H. W. PARKE & 
D. E. W. WorMELL, The Delphic Oracle, |: 
The History, Il: The Oracular Responses 
(Oxford 1956); L. ROBERT, Un oracle gravé 
à Oinoanda, CRAIBL 1971 (Paris 1972) 
597-619; T. L. Rosinson, Theological 
Oracles and the Sanctuaries of Claros and 
Didyma (Thesis Harvard University 1981); 
J. SOLOMON (ed.), Apollo: Origins and In- 


fluences (Tucson 1994); K. WERNICKE, 
Apollon, PW 2 (1896) 1-111. 


R. VAN DEN BROEK 


APOLLYON ~ ABADDON; APOLLO 
APSU > ENDS OF THE EARTH 
AQAN - YA'OQ 


ARCHAI ‘Apyai 

I. The Gk term arché, and its equiv- 
alent Lat translation principium, carries the 
basic meaning of primacy in time or rank. It 
is an abstract term for power often used 
with the meaning ‘sphere of authority’, i.e. 
power which is wielded by someone in a 
position of political, social or economic 
authority, such as a public official (Luke 
20:20; Sib. Or. 5,20, 153). In the singular or 
plural arché is sometimes paired with 
exousia with the meaning ‘office and auth- 
ority' (Plato Alcibiades 135a; Philo Leg. 71; 
Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1; Mart. Pol. 10:2). It is 
also paired with basileis, 'kings' (Pss. Sol. 
2:30; Philo Somn. 1.290), and also linked 
with *kings and rulers', hegoumenoi (! Clem 
32:2). It also is used in a more concrete 
sense referring to those who rule or govern, 
le. ‘magistrate’, ‘ruler’, *governor' (Luke 
12:11). When used with the latter meaning, 
arché belongs to the same semantic sub- 
domain as arclión; in the Greek version of / 
Enoch 6:7-8, e.g. arché and archón are used 
interchangeably. By extension, arché can be 
used as a title for a supernatural force or 
power, whether good or evil, which has 
some control over the activities and destiny 
of human beings (Eph 6:12). Since the 
phrase archai kai exousiai is a stock ex- 
pression used of ‘magistrates and ~*author- 
ities’ (Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1; Mart. Pol. 
10:2), it is likely that this political terminol- 
ogy was simply applied by figurative exten- 
sion to supematural beings who were 
thought to occupy vague positions of auth- 
ority over other supernatural beings or over 
human beings. 

II. The term archai (and its Lat equiv- 


71 


ARCHAI 


alent principia), when used of supernatural 
beings, appears to have been used exclusive- 
ly in early Christianity, and perhaps anteced- 
ently in early Judaism and early Christianity 
until it was eventually adopted by Christian 
Gnostics and appropriated by Neoplatonic 
philosophers. Though it is generally pre- 
sumed that early Christianity borrowed the 
language for various classes of angelic 
beings (-'Angels) including archai from 
Judaism, the evidence is problematic. One 
supposed Jewish apocalyptic antecedent to 
Paul’s use of the term ‘principalities’ 
(archai) in Rom 8:38-39 (where it is linked 
with ‘angels’ in one of the earliest occur- 
rences of the term as an angelic category) is 
found in J Enoch 61:10: “And he will call 
all the host of the heavens, and all the holy 
ones above, and the host of the Lorp, and 
the --Cherubim, and the -*Seraphim and the 
Ophannim, and all the angels of power, and 
all the angels of the principalities (presum- 
ably archai).” Yet the dating of / Enoch 37- 
71 (the so-called Similitudes of Enoch in 
which this statement is found), is problem- 
atic; there is no persuasive evidence requir- 
ing a date prior to the middle of the first 
century CE. Further, it is possible that thc 
Ethiopic phrase for ‘angels of principalities’ 
may be translating the Greek phrase angeloi 
kuriotétón (Dominions) rather than angeloi 
archon (BLACK 1982). Similarly, the Theo- 
dotianic version of Dan 10:20 speaks of the 
‘prince of Persia’ and the ‘prince of Greece’, 
certainly angelic beings in charge of particu- 
lar nations (-*Prince). In / Enoch 6:8 (pre- 
served in Gk and Aram in addition to Eth), 
archai is used of twenty named angels or 
—watchers, each of whom commands ten 
angels of lesser status. This angelic organiz- 
ation appears to have a military origin, for 
the Israclite army was arranged under 
leaders of thousands, hundreds, fifties and 
tens (Exod 18:21, 25; Deut 1:15; 1 Macc 
3:55; 1QM 3.16-17; 4.1-5, 15-17). Josephus 
refers to the organization of the Maccabean 
army in 1 Macc 3:55 as “the old traditional 
manner” (Ant. 12.301). In the LXX Exod 
18:21, 25 and 1 Macc 3:55 the term dekad- 
archai is used for commanders of the lowest 


78 


level of military organization, which was 
also common in the Hellenistic world 
(Xenophon Cyr. 8.1.14; Polybius 6.25.2; 
Josephus War 2.578; Arrian Anab. 7.23.3). 
There are several other places in / Enoch, 
where the term archai or archontes very 
probably lies behind the Ethiopic. / Enoch 
71:5 speaks of “the leaders of the heads of 
thousands who are in charge of the whole 
creation" and / Enoch 80:6 mentions that 
"many heads of the stars in command will 
go astray" (see also / Enoch 82:11-20). In 
Jub. 10:8, -Mastemah is called “the chief 
of the spirits". In 4Q Shir Shab the term 
nés?im, ‘princes’, is used of angels several 
times (4Q403 1 i 1, 10, 21; 4Q400 3 ii 2; 
4Q405 13 2-3, 7; NEwsom 1985:26-27), as 
is the term ra’sim, ‘chiefs’ (4Q403 1 ii 11; 
4Q405 23 ii 10; Newsom 1985:27), and 
these are combined in the title ‘chief 
princes’ (4Q403 1 ii 20, 21; 4Q405 8-9 5-6). 
In the LXX, the term ró'$, is occasionally 
translated with archón (Deut 33:5; Job 
29:25; Ezek 38:2-3) or arché, meaning 
‘chief’, ‘master’, ‘sovereign’, ‘prince’, i.e. a 
term for leadership in the military, political 
and priestly ranks. Another use of the term 
archai for a category of angelic beings in 
Judaism occurs in the Theod. Dan 7:27 
(Theodotion, the reviser of an earlier 'Ur- 
Theodotianic’ version of the Gk OT, was 
active toward the end of the second century 
CE) "Then kingship and authority and the 
greatness of the kingdoms under the entire 
heaven were given to the holy ones (hagioi) 
of the Most High, and his kingship is an 
eternal kingship and all rulers (Aai archai) 
shall serve and obey him." Here archai, 
‘rulers’ (the LXX has exousiai, ‘authorities’) 
is parallel to hagioi (‘the holy ones’), a Gk 
translation of the Heb term gédósim, a 
designation often used of angels (—saints, 
Ps 89:6; Job 5:1; 15:15; Zech 14:5; Dan 4: 
14; 8:13; see also Tob 12:15; T. Levi 12:15; 
Pss. Sol. 17:49). The Aram phrase under- 
lying hagioi in Theod. Dan 7:27 is actually 
‘am qaddisim, ‘the people of the saints’, i.e. 
Israel is the people of the holy ones [angels] 
(COLLINS 1977). 

III. There are several problems in inter- 


ARCHAI 


preting the term archai in the NT. One 
problem is that of determining whether or 
not the archai refer to human rulers or 
supernatural rulers. Another is that of deter- 
mining whether, when supernatural beings 
are in view, they are good or evil. A third 
problem is that of determining whether 
supernatural categories of beings such as 
archai are distinct from other categories, 
such as exousiai and dynameis, or whether 
such designations are largely interchange- 
able. Paul includes angels, principalities 
(archai) and powers in in a list of obstacles 
which might separate the believer from the 
love of God in Rom 8:38. Clement of 
Alexandria interprets these as evil super- 
natural powers (Strom. 4.14). He may be 
correct, for since angels and archai appear 
to be antithetical in Rom 8:38, it is possible 
that the former are good while the latter are 
evil. In 1 Cor 15:24 it is clear that the 
archai, along with every authority and 
power, are considered hostile, since they are 
subject to destruction and are parallel to the 
term ‘enemies’ in 1 Cor 15:25, though here 
these categories may (but probably do not) 
refer to human rulers. There can be little 
doubt that the powers mentioned in Eph 
1:21 and 6:12, and specifically the archai 
must be understood as evil supernatural 
powers. 

In general it must be concluded that the 
lists of supernatural beings including the 
archai in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline lit- 
erature are hostile supernatural beings. Fur- 
ther, it appears that the various categories 
are largely interchangeable, though it is 
possible that both authors and readers shared 
certain understandings about such beings 
which they did not find necessary to make 
more explicit, 

Lists of Angelic Beings. The terms 
archai and exousiai, or their Lat equivalents 
principia and potestates, were frequently 
paired in a formulaic way to refer to super- 
natural beings (Eph 3:10; Col 1:16; 2:10, 
15; Justin / Apol. 41.1; Irenaeus Adv. haer. 
1.21.5; Act. Phil. 132, 144; Methodius 
Symp. 6; Epiphanius Pan. 31.5.2 [a Valentin- 
ian source}), When the three terms archai, 


79 


exousiai and dynameis are used together 
(almost always in that order), supernatural 
beings are usually in view (1 Cor 15:24; 
Justin Dial. 120.6; T. Sol. 20.15; Act. Jolin 
98 [here the order is dynameis, exousiai, and 
archai, the reverse of the normal order, and 
the list goes on to include ‘demons’, activ- 
ities {energeiai}, threatenings {apeilai}, 
passions {thymoi}, calumnies, -*Satan and 
the inferior root]). Short lists of angelic 
beings occur in early Christian magical pro- 
cedures such as PGM 13.15: archai kai 
exousiai kai kosmokratores, ‘rulers and 
authorities and cosmic rulers’ (the same 
brief list found in Origen De principiis 
1.6.3), and PGM 21.2-3: pasés archés kai 
exousias kai kuriotétos, ‘every ruler and 
authority and ruling power’. These lists 
seem to imply that archai are one among 
several classes of angelic beings, though the 
hierarchization of such beings appears to be 
a later step. 

Angelic Classes and Hierarchies. In 
Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism, there 
were numerous attempts to classify or 
systematize the various traditional terms for 
angelic beings. Despite frequent claims to 
the contrary, these speculations are not at- 
tested earlier than the first century CE. In T. 
Levi 3:1-8 (part of a more extensive Jewish 
interpolation in 2:3-6:2), a variety of angelic 
beings are correlated with some of the seven 
heavens, though archai are not mentioned. 
The third heaven (3:3) contains the *powers 
of the hosts' (hai dynameis tón par- 
embolón), in the fourth heaven (3:8) are 
‘--thrones and authorities’ (t/rronoi, ex- 
ousiai), in the fifth heaven (3:7) are angels, 
and in the sixth heaven (3:5) are the ‘angels 
of the presence of the Lord’. While the 
Grundschrift of the T. /2 Patr may be as 
early as 200 BCE, this Jewish interpolation is 
probably much later, i.e. the first century CE. 
Archai are apparently mentioned in a clas- 
sification of ten angelic orders in Slavonic 2 
Enoch 20:1 found in the longer recension 
which cannot with any assurance be dated 
earlier than the second century cE: (1) arch- 
angels, (2) incorporeal forces (dynameis?), 
(3) dominions (kuriotétes), (4) origins 


ARCHANGEL 


(archai?), (S) authorities (exousiai?), (6) 
cherubim, (7) seraphim, (8) many-eyed 
thrones (thronoi?), (9) regiments and (10) 
shining 'otanim'(?) stations. In one of the 
eight Syriac manuscripts of the T. Adam, 
there is a list of heavenly powers placing 
them in a hierarchical arrangement begin- 
ning from the lowest and proceeding to the 
highest order: angels, archangels, archons 
(archai), authorities, powers, dominions, and 
finally at the highest level, thrones, seraphim 
and cherubim arc grouped together (4:1-8). 
In De caelesti hierarchia, Ps.-Dionysius 
Areopagita, strongly influenced by Nco- 
platonic angelology, presents a hierarchy of 
angelic beings in three orders consisting of 
three types of angels in each order: (1) the 
highest order consists of seraphim, cherubim 
and thrones, 7.1-4, (2) the middle order con- 
sists of Dominions (kuriotétes), Authorities, 
(exousiai), and Powers, (dynameis), 8.1, and 
(3) the lowest order consists of principalities 
(archai), archangels (archangeloi), and 
angels, (angeloi), 9.1-2. This author also 
uses the terms angels and heavenly powers, 
dynameis ouranias, as generic terms for 
heavenly beings (4.1; 11.1-2). Iamblichus 
lists supernatural beings which reveal a god, 
such as an angel, archangel, demon, archon 
or a soul (De myst. 2.3). In an inscription 
written over the heads of angels in a Mosaic 
in the Koimesis Church, the terms archai, 
dynameis, kuriotétes, and exousiai appear 
(Sanin, 1:497). 
IV. Bibliography 

C. E. ARNOLD, Ephesians: Power and 
Magic (Cambridge 1989); H. BIETENHARD, 
Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und 
Spéltjudentum (Tiibingen 1951) 104-108; M. 
BLACK, Pasai exousiai autdi hypotagesontai, 
Paul and Paulinisim: Essays in Honour of C. 
K. Barrett (London 1982) 73-82; G. B. 
CAIRD, Principalities and Powers (Oxford 
1956); F. Cumont, Les anges du pagan- 
isme, RHR 72 (1915) 159-182; W. Carr, 
Angels and Principalities (Cambridge 1983); 
J. J. COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Vision of the 
Book of Daniel (Missoula 1977) 141-144; 
M. DiBELIUS, Geisterwelt im Glauben des 
Paulus (Gottingen 1909); O. EvERLING, Die 


80 


paulinische Angelologie und Dédmonologie 
(Göttingen 1888); W. GRUNDMANN, Der 
Begriff der Kraft in der neutestamentlichen 
Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart 1932) 39-55; J. Y. 
LEE, Interpreting the Demonic Powers in 
Pauline Thought, NovT 12 (1970) 54-69; G. 
H. C. MacGrecor, Principalities and 
Powers: The Cosmic Background of Paul’s 
Thought, NTS 1| (1954-55) 17-28; C. Mon- 
RISON, The Powers That Be: Earthly Rulers 
and Demonic Powers in Romans 13:1-7 
(London 1960); C. Newsom, Songs of the 
Sabbath Sacrifice (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985); 
M. Pesce, Paolo e gli Archonti a Corinto 
(Brescia 1977) 261-336; S. E. ROBINSON, 
The Testament of Adam (Chico 1982) 142- 
44, 146-48; S. SAHIN, Inschriften des Mu- 
seums von Iznik (Nikaia) (Bonn 1979-82); 
H. SCHLIER, Principalities and Powers in 
the New Testament (Freiburg 1961); W. 
WiNK, Naming the Powers (Philadelphia 
1984) 13-15, 151-156. 


D. E. AUNE 


ARCHANGEL àpxáyyeloç 

I. The figure of the archangel already 
appears in the Hebrew Bible, but the Greek 
term archangelos (Latin archangelus) does 
not occur in the Greek versions of the OT. 
The word appears in (early) Greek passages 
in the OT Pseudepigrapha (e.g. Greek text 
of 7 Enoch) and there are two occurrences 
in the NT (1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9). 

Il. In Jewish literature from the Second 
Temple period a tendency can be observed 
to differentiate between groups and cat- 
egories of angels (cf. / Enoch 61:10; 2 
Enoch 19:1-5; Angel) and to bring a hier- 
archy in the angelic world. Some scholars 
assume influence here from pagan concep- 
tions. FoNrINov (1989:124), for instance, 
thinks of Persian influence and notes the 
similarity between the seven angels of the 
face (cf. Tob. 12:15) with Persian angel- 
ology. BousseT & GRESSMANN 1926:325- 
326 assume Babylonian influence. In any 
case, several angels act in Jewish and Early 
Christian texts as individuals with a specific 
function and were assigned the status of the 


ARCHANGEL 


highest angels in the hierarchy (especially 
~>Michael and -*Gabricl). In magical texts, 
which are often influenced by Jewish and 
Christian ideas, archangels also appear (c.g. 
PGM 1V 3051; MıcHL 1962:56). 

HI. A forerunner of the archangel ap- 
pears already in Josh 5:13-15. Joshua sees a 
man who reveals himself as the captain of 
the heavenly army (-*Angel) LXX reads 
archistratégos, which word is sometimes 
used as a synonym for archangelos (c.g. T. 
Abr. rec. long. 1:4 and 14:10; 3 Apoc. Bar. 
11:8; cf. Dan 8:11: RowrAND 1985:101). In 
Daniel and the Qumran writings the ->Prin- 
ce of the heavenly host might still be an 
independant figure, who came to be ident- 
ified with Michael or another archangel only 
from the first century C.E. onwards (G. 
BAMPFYLDE, The Prince of the Host in the 
Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 
JSJ 14 [1983] 129-134). 

In Daniel there are already two exalted 
angels: Michael as one of the chief princes 
and protector of Israel in the context of the 
battle of the angels of the nations (10:13, 
21; 12:1) and Gabriel, the angelus interpres 
for the seer (8:15-26). Also in Jude 9 and 
Rev 12:7 Michael acts as contestant 
(^Dragon; -'Satan) and in Jude arclangelos 
is used in this connection. Gabriel too is 
superior to other angels. According to / 
Enoch 40:9 he is set over all the powers and 
given the function of divine annunciator (cf. 
Luke 1). According to 1 Thess 4:16 an 
anonymous archangel heralds the descent of 
the Lord and the resurrection of the -*dead. 
In Apoc. Mos. 22 Michael appears in a simi- 
lar role before God's punishment of Adam 
and Eve. 

Besides the elevation of individual angels 
appear groups of (usually four or seven) 
special angels, to which Michael, Raphael 
and Gabriel usually belong if the angels are 
given names. Seven angels appear as execu- 
ters of divine punishment in Ezek 9. The 
same number is mentioned in Tob 12:15, 
where Raphael presents himself as one of 
the seven angels who transmit the prayers of 
the holy ones (see mss B and A; ms S: 
"who stand in attendance [on the Lord]") 


81 


and enter the glorious presence of the Lord 
(see also T. Levi 8:2; ] Enoch 20). ] Enoch 
20 gives a list of seven angels. In the Gizch 
Papyrus only six names are mentioned, but 
in both of the extant Greek papyri the list 
ends with a reference to the names of seven 
archangeloi (20:7). The names of these 
angels "who keep watch" (so Eth; Greck: 
"angels of the powers") are: -*Uriel, 
Raphael, Raguel. Michael, Sariel, Gabriel 
and Remicl. 

1 Enoch 9 has a list of four archangels: 
Michael, Sariel (uncertain; Greek: Uriel; 
many Eth mss Suryal), Raphael and Gabriel. 
Usually Uriel (in the Book of Parables in / 
Enoch 37-71 Phanuel) figures in the lists of 
four archangels instead of Sariel (e.g. Sib. 
Or. 2:215; Apoc. Mos. 40:2; Pirke de-Rabbi 
Eliezer 4), but Sariel belongs to the oldest 
tradition of the four archangels according to 
BLACK 1985:129, 162-163, referring to the 
Aramaic fragments and to 1QM 9:14-16 (cf. 
Da4vipsoN 1992:50, 325-326). The name of 
Uriel is replaced by that of Phanuel in / 
Enoch 40:9; 54:6 and 71:8-9. The group of 
four archangels probably developed from 
the four living creatures from Ezek |. They 
are standing on the four sides of the divine 
throne (cf. the ‘Angels of Presence’, e.g. 
IQH 6:12-13; IQSb 4:25-26; 4Q400 col. 1 
lines 4 and 8) and say praises before thc 
Lord of Glory (/ Enoch 40). pray on behalf 
of the righteous on earth (/ Enoch 40:6; Tob 
12:15) and act as intercessors for the souls 
of righteous ones who have died (/ Enoch 
9; T. Abr. 14). They play an important part 
at the final judgement. Thus they lead 
among other things the souls of men to the 
tribunal of the Lord (Sib. Or. 2:214-219) 
and will cast kings and potentates in the 
burning furnace on the great day of judge- 
ment (/ Enoch 54:6; on the groups of 
archangels and their functions see further 
Micur 1962:77-78, 89-91, 169-174, 182- 
186). 

Sometimes, archangels are mentioned 
who do not belong to one of the lists of four 
or seven of the principal angels (e.g. 
-Jeremiel, 4 Ezra 4:36; Dokiel, T. Abr. 
13:10 rec. long.). Phanael acts as angelic 


ARCHON 


messenger during Baruch’s heavenly jour- 
ney and is described as archangel and inter- 
pretor of revelations (3 Apoc. Bar. 10:1; 
11:7). In J Enoch 87-88 three archangels put 
—Enoch in positions to observe carefully 
what is being revealed to him. Philo ident- 
ifies the archangelos with the divine 
-— Logos (DECHARNEUX 1989). 
IV. Bibliography 

M. BLack. The Book of Enoch or I Enoch. 
A New English Edition with Commentary 
and Textual Notes (SVTP 7; Leiden 1985); 
W. BoussET & H. GRESSMANN, Die Reli- 
gion des Judentums im spáthellenistischen 
Zeitalter (HNT 27; Tübingen 1926) 325- 
329; I. BROER, dyyeAoc. EWNT 1 (Stuttgart 
1980) 36-37; *M. J. DaviDSON, Angels at 
Qumran. A Comparative Study of 1 Enoch 
1-36, 72-108 and Sectarian Writings from 
Qumran (JSP Supplement Series 11; 
Sheffield 1992) 49-53, 75-78, 97-98, 104- 
105, 157, 194-196, 228, 301, 325-326 [& 
lit]; B. DECHARNEUX, Anges, démons et 
Logos dans l'ocuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie, 
Anges et démons. Actes du Colloque de 
Liège et de Louvain-La-Neuve 25-26 no- 
vembre 1987 (ed. J. Ries; Louvain-La- 
Neuve 1989) 147-175; C. Fontinoy, Les 
anges et les démons de l'Ancien Testament, 
Anges et démons (sec above) 117-134; W. 
LUEKEN, Michael. Eine Darstellung und 
Vergleichung der jiidischen und der mor- 
genlündisch-christlichen — Tradition — vom 
Erzengel Michael (Göttingen 1898); *M. 
Macu, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen 
Engelglaubens | in — vorrabbinischer Zeit 
(TSAJ 34; Tübingen 1992) [& lit}; J. 
Micut, Engel (I-IX), RAC 5 (Stuttgart 
1962) 53-258. 


J. W. VAN HENTEN 


ARCHON "Apxov 

I. The term archón, a participial form 
of the verb archein used as a substantive, 
carrics the root meaning of primacy in time 
or rank. After the overthrow of the mon- 
archies in the Greek city-states (ca. 650 
BCE), the term archón, meaning ‘high 
official’ or ‘chief magistrate’, became wide- 


82 


ly used for a variety of high public officials. 
Originally it was primarily limited as a 
designation for the highest officials (Thu- 
cydides 1.126; Aristotle Ath. Pol. 13, 10- 
12). A typical Greek polis had two or more 
magistrates (archontes), a council (boulé) 
and an assembly of the people (démos); see 
Josephus Ant. 14.190; 16.172. Public and 
private leadership terms formulated with the 
prefix arch- were extremely common in the 
Hellenistic period. During the late Hellenist- 
ic and early Roman period the term archón, 
in both singular and plural forms, began to 
be used in early Judaism and early Christi- 
anity and then in Neoplatonism and Gnost- 
icism as designation for supernatural beings 
such as -*angels, -*^demons and -*Satan and 
planetary deities who were thought to oc- 
cupy a particular rank in a hierarchy of 
supernatural beings analogous to a political 
or military structure. 

II. There was a widespread notion in the 
ancient world that the planets either were 
deities or were presided over by deities, a 
view which probably originated in Babylo- 
nia and involved astral fatalism. Philo refers 
to the popular conception that the -*sun, 
—moon and -*stars were gods, but he argues 
that -*Moses regarded the heavenly bodies 
as archontes, governing those beings which 
exist below the moon, in the air or on the 
—earth (De spec. leg. 1.13-14). The term 
kosmokratores was also used of the planets, 
personified as rulers of the heavenly spheres 
(a term used with some frequency later in 
the Greek magical papyri). While these 
supernatural beings were not unambiguously 
regarded as either good or evil, there was a 
strong tendency to regard them as hostile if 
not evil. 

The Neoplatonist Iamblichus (ca. 250-325 
CE) dependent on Babylonian-Chaldaean 
astrology, perhaps as mediated by a lost 
work called Hyphegetica by Julian the 
Theurgist, posited a hierarchy of supernatu- 
ral beings between God and the soul: 
-archangels, angels, demons, two kinds of 
archons, heroes and souls. The two types of 
archons, which function only in the sublunar 
region, included cosmic archons, kosmo- 


ARCHON 


kratores, and hylic archons, tes hylés 
parestékotes (Iamblichus, De myst. 2.3.71). 
It is significant that the archontes of lam- 
blichus are much lower on the hierarchy of 
being than archangels and angels. 

III. In the LXX, the term archon is used 
to translate thirty-six different Hebrew terms 
with such meanings as ‘chief, ‘head’, 
‘leader’ or ‘ruler’. Two of the more 
significant of these Hebrew words include 
ró'i, which is occasionally translated with 
archón (Deut 33:5; Job 29:25; Ezek 38:2.3), 
and nàá$?', meaning 'chief', 'master', 'sover- 
eign’, ‘prince’, i.e. a term for leadership in 
the military, political and priestly ranks. 
Judaism used the term archén of synagogue 
leaders, and archén was sometimes inter- 
changeable with archisynagégos (both are 
used of Jairus in Luke 8:41.49), but at other 
times they were apparently distinguished 
(Acts 14:2 var.lect.). 

In early Judaism and early Christianity, 
archón was one of the designations used to 
refer to the evil spiritual ruler of human 
beings and the cosmos, known by a variety 
of aliases including Satan, Devil, -*Belial, 
and -*Mastemah. The synoptic gospels 
occasionally refer to Satan as the archón tón 
daimonión, ‘prince of demons’ (Matt 9:34; 
12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15), because 
demons (like angels), were thought to be 
organized like an army or a political hier- 
archy. The notion that a large host of celes- 
tial beings was commanded by ~Yahweh is 
an ancient conception in Israel (1 Sam 
1:3.11; 1 Kgs 22:19; 2 Chr 18:18). This is 
reflected in the divine name yhwh séba’ér, 
—'Yahweh Zebaoth', a title which occurs 
some 267 times in the OT (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4; 
2 Sam 6:2; Isa 31:4). However, the mirror 
conception of Satan leading a host of evil 
angels or demons does not appear to be 


older than the second century BCE. Similarly | 


in Jub., Mastemah (a designation of Satan) 
is called the “chief of spirits” (10:8). Por- 
phyry claimed that Sarapis and Hekate were 
the archontes of evil demons (Eusebius 
Praep. evang. 4.22.174a), but this use of the 
term in a pagan context is so rare that it per- 
haps can be explained as a borrowing from 


83 


early Judaism or early Christianity. Some- 
what surprisingly, the term archón is not 
applied to supernatural beings, whether good 
or evil, in the non-Christian Greck magical 
papyri, though the related term kosmokratér 
is. Another usc of the term archon for Satan 
focuses on his domination of the present 
world or age (the Heb word *ólám can mean 
either). In John 12:31, for example, he is 
called ho archón tou kosmou toutou, ‘the 
prince of this world', but (in accordance 
with Johannine theology) his imminent 
expulsion is emphasized. In John 14:30, the 
Johannine -*Jesus says that though the 
prince of this world is coming. he has no 
power over Jesus, and in John 16:11 Jesus is 
made to say that the prince of this world has 
been judged. The same title occurs in a 
number of other texts where there is no indi- 
cation that Satan’s sovereignty is in immi- 
nent jeopardy (7. Sol. 2:9; 3:5-6; 6:1; Asc. 
Isa. 1:3; 2:4; 10:29). In Barn. 18:2 (part of 
the Two-Ways tradition also found in Did. 
1-6 and 1QS 3.13-4.26), he is called "the 
prince of the present time of iniquity" who 
controls the way of darkness, a title which 
has a clear precedent in Judaism in the title 
Śr mmšlt rš‘h, ‘prince of the -dominion of 
ungodliness’ (1QM 17.5-6). The context for 
the conception of Satan as ruler of this 
world or age is the apocalyptic world view 
which consisted in a temporal or eschatol- 
ogical dualism in which the present age 
(hà'ólàm hazzeh, ‘this world or age’) is 
dominated by wickedness through the 
influence of Satan, while the imminent fu- 
ture age (ha‘élam habba’, literally ‘the com- 
ing world or age’) will be inaugurated by 
the. victory of —God over all evil (Matt 
12:32; Luke 16:8; Gal 1:4). The introduction 
of the future era will be accomplished by 
the climactic intervention of God (either 
directly or through a human agent, i.e. a 
Messiah) and will be preceded by the 
destruction of the wicked and the final de- 
liverance of the righteous. In Eph 2:2, Satan 
is called "the prince of the power of the 
air", i.c. the prince whose domain is the air. 
This title is clearly a designation for Satan, 
for he is also described as “the -spirit 


ARCHON 


(pneuma) now at work in the sons of dis- 
obedience” (Eph 2:2). The air was regarded 
as the dwelling place of -*evil spirits in the 
ancient world (Philo, De gig. 6, 2 Enoch 
29:4; Asc. Isa. 7:9). Ignatius, who uses the 
name ‘Satan’ once (Eph. 13:1), and the term 
‘Devil’ four times (Eph. 10:3; Trall. 8:1; 
Rom. 5:3; Smyrn. 9:1), tends to prefer the 
more descriptive designation 'prince of this 
age', archón tou aiónos toutou, emphasizing 
the temporal rule of Satan (Eph. 17:1; 19:1; 
Magn. 1:2; Trall. 4:2; Rom. 7:1; Philad. 
6:2). Satan is called “the wicked prince” in 
Barn. 4:13, a title which corresponds to “the 
prince of error" in 7. Simeon 2:7 and T. 
Judah 19:4. 

The term archontes used as a designation 
for angelic beings first occurs in the LXX 
Dan 10:13, and seven times in Theod. Dan 
10:13, 20-21; 12:1, where the LXX has 
stratégos, 'commander', ‘magistrate’, all 
translations of the Aram far, ‘prince’. Dan 
10:10-21 contains the first references to the 
conception of angelic beings who are the 
patrons of specific nations on earth. The late 
merkavah work entitled 3 Enoch refers to 
the seventy or seventy-two faré malkuyyót, 
‘princes of kingdoms’ continuing the similar 
conception found in Dan 10:20-21 (3 Enoch 
17:8; 18:2; 30:2); the angelic princes of 
Rome and Persia are mentioned specifically 
in 3 Enoch 26:12, an allusion to Dan 10:33. 
In the Greck version of / Enoch 6 by Syn- 
cellus, the term archón is used of Semyaza, 
the leader of the fallen angels or -watchers. 
but also for various angelic leaders subordi- 
nate to Semyaza, reflecting traditional Near 
Eastern military models. After Daniel, the 
earliest reference to archontes as angelic 
beings is found in Ignatius of Antioch. In 
Smyrn. 6:1, Ignatius mentions “the glory of 
angels and princes (archontes) visible and 
invisible", referring to two categories of 
angels, as the parallel in Trall. 5:1 suggests, 
where he refers to "the places of angels and 
the gatherings of rulers. (archontikas)". 
Since these lists are so short, it is unclear 
whether the angels are superior to archons 
or the reverse. Similarly in the Epistle to 
Diognetus 7:2, the author argues that God 


84 


did not send an angel or a prince [archén] 
into the world, but Christ the agent of all 
creation. In rabbinic and merkavah texts, the 
far ha‘élam, ‘prince of the world’ is men- 
tioned, but (unlike John 12:31 and parallels) 
is never an evil figure (b.Yeb. 16b; b.Hull. 
60a; b.Sanh. 94a; Exod. Rabbah 17:4, 3 
Enoch 30:2; 38:3). 

In 1 Cor 2:6.8, a much disputed passage 
(see PESCE 1977), Paul speaks of ‘the rulers 
(archontes) of this world’. Here the archontes 
can refer to political authorities (SCHNIE- 
WIND 1952), but more probably to demons 
(Origen, De princ. 3.2; Tertullian, Ady. 
Marc. 5.6; SCHLIER 1961:45-46). Justin 
(Dial. 36.6) speaks of the ‘princes in 
heaven’ (hoi en ourandi archontes) who did 
not recognize -*Christ when he descended 
into the world (though he does not specify 
whether these were good or evil), and it was 
these same princes who were commanded to 
open the gates of heaven when Christ ascen- 
ded (36.5; here Justin is interpreting the 
term hoi archontes found in the LXX ver- 
sion of Ps 23:7.9, a possible but unlikely 
translation of the Hebrew). A similar view is 
reflected in Asc. /sa. 11:23-29, and it is 
specifically claimed in Asc. /sa. 11:6 that the 
birth of Jesus was hidden from all the 
heavens, all the princes and every god of 
this world. Ignatius similarly claims that the 
virginity of Mary as well as the birth and 
death of Jesus were hidden from the “prince 
of this world" (Eph. 19:1). 

IV. The archontes play an important 
mythological role in some Gnostic cosmol- 
ogies. The scven spheres (the sun, moon, 
and the five planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, 
Jupiter and Saturn, bounded by the region of 
the fixed stars) are controlled by supernatu- 
ral beings designated by various terms in- 
cluding archontes. Seven archontes are 
usually presided over by a chief archdén, 
who is also the demiurge who created the 
world, and resides in the Ogdoad, the eighth 
region above the seven planetary spheres. 
Since the attainment of salvation is linked 
with attaining to the sphere of the ~un- 
known God, passage through the concentric 
ranks of hostile archons is necessary. One 


ARES 


specific form of this myth is presented in the 
Coptic Gnostic treatise The Hypostasis of 
the Archons, where the archontes are said to 
guard the gates of the seven planetary 
spheres, impeding the upward movement of 
souls. Irenaeus is the earliest author to men- 
tion the names of the seven archons, which 
are so strikingly Hebraic that their Jewish 
origin appears highly likely (Adv. haer. 
1.30): Ialdabaoth (the chief archón), lao, 
Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus, Oreus and 
Astanphaeus. Origen later provided a list of 
the seven archons in Ophite mythology 
(Contra Celsum 6.31): laldabaoth, lao, 
Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Eloaios and 
Horaios, together with the specific formulas 
which must be used in order to get past each 
archon. A Gnostic sect named the Archont- 
ici took its name from the archons of the 
seven planetary spheres (the Gk term 
archontikoi, transliterated as archontici or 
archontiaci in Lat, is an adjective used as a 
substantive formed from archén; see Epi- 
phanius Pan. 40.2). In the Apocryphon of 
John 48.10-17, the words of Gen 1:26, "Let 
us make man in our image and likeness” are 
attributed to the seven archons who created 
—Adam. This reflects the Jewish tradition 
that man was made by the angels (Irenaeus, 
Adv. haer. 1.24.1-2). 
V. Bibliography 

W. Carr, Angels and Principalities (Cam- 
bridge 1981); Carr, The Rulers of This 
Age—1 Corinthians 2.6-8, NTS 23 (1976- 
77) 20-35; F. W. CREMER, Die chaldäischen 
Orakel und Jamblich de mysteriis (Meisen- 
heim am Glan 1969) 86-91; G. DELLING, 
archón, TDNT 1, 488-489; M. DiıBELIUS, 
Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus 
(Göttingen 1909), 88-99; S. EITREM, Some 
Notes on the Demonology in the New Testa- 
ment, (Oslo 19662); W. GRUNDMANN, Der 
Begriff der Kraft in der Neutestamentlichen 
Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart 1932) 39-55; G. 
MILLER, ARCHONTON TOU AIONOS 
TOUTOU—A New Look at 1 Corinthians 2: 
6-8, JBL 91 (1972) 522-528; M. Pesce, Paolo 
e gli Arconti a Corinto: Storia della ricerca 
(1888-1975) ed esegesi di 1 Cor. 2,6.8 
(Brescia 1977) H. ScHuER, Principalities 


85 


and Powers in the New Testament (New 
York 1961); J. SCHNIEWIND, Die Archonten 
dieses Äons, 1. Kor. 2,6-8; Nachgelassene 
Reden und Aufsätze (Berlin 1952) 104-109. 


D. E. AUNE 


ARES “Apn 

I. Ares is the god of war of the Greek 
pantheon, who also represents the warrior 
side of other gods, such as ->Zeus Areios, 
—Athena Areia, —Aphrodite Areia and, 
apparently already in Mycenean times, 
-Hermaas Areias (BURKERT 1985:169). In 
the Bible he perhaps appears as a theophoric 
element in the name Areopagus in Acts 17. 
The name already occurs in Lincar-B as 
Are (KN Fp 14), but its ctymology is dc- 
bated. Perhaps it was an ancient abstract 
noun meaning 'throng of battle, war' (Bun- 
KERT 1985:169, but sec also PETERS 1986: 
371-375). Ares’ name in Greek literature 
often indiscriminately alternates with that of 
Enyalios, another old war god, but in cult 
both gods are clearly separated, as was al- 
ready the case in Mycenean times (GRAF 
1985:266-267). Ares was identified in 
Scythia (Herodotus 4.59-62), Asia Minor 
(ROBERT, Hellenica V11.69-70; X.72-78, 214 
note 5; XIII.44; 1966, 91-100), Arabia and 
Syria (SEYRIG 1970; AuGÉ 1984) with in- 
digenous war gods and the Romans ident- 
ified him with Mars. 

IIl. Ares is the warrior par excellence, 
especially in his more fierce and destructive 
shape and the only god to fight like a human 
on the Trojan battlefield. Homer depicts him 
as young, strong, big and fast; in short, he 
possesses all the desirable qualities of the 
archaic warriors, who are characterised as 
‘members of his retinue’ (rherapontes, ozoi: 
MAADER 1979:1254-1255). But he is also 
'ruinous to men' (/I. 5.31) and the embodi- 
ment of the 'Unvemunft des Nur-Kriegers' 
(MAADER 1979:1251). As Zeus puts it: 
"You are the most hateful to me of all the 
gods who hold -— Olympus, since forever 
strife is dear to you and wars and battles" 
(/l. 5.890-1). Typically, when Sisyphus has 
managed to fetter -Thanatos and thus 
stopped people dying, it is Ares who liber- 


ARES 


ates the god of death, as Aeschylus narrated 
in his Sisyphus Drapetes (see S. RADT, Tra- 
gicorum | Graecorum fragmenta [vol. 3 
Aeschylus; Gottingen 1985] 337). It is this 
role as raging, ravaging warrior which may 
explain why magic-healers ascribed pos- 
session to Ares (Hippocrates, Sacred Dis- 
ease 4) and Sophocles (Oedipus Rex 190) 
could identify Ares with the plague. Ares is 
an indispensable god but at the same time 
his murderous character makes him undesir- 
able. It is especially the latter quality which 
comes to the fore in myth and ritual. 

Myth located the birth of Ares in Thrace 
(/l. 13.301; Od. 8.361), the country which 
was considered, if wrongly, as wild and 
barbarous; here was also his grave (Ps- 
Clement, Recogn. 10.24). The parallel with 
-Dionysos, who was also born in Thrace, 
shows that the Greeks liked to situate nega- 
tive figures outside their own culture, not 
that these gods were originally aliens. His 
father was Zeus and his mother -*Hera (//. 
5.892-893), who in various Greek cities was 
worshipped with a martial aspect (M. L. 
West, Hesiod: Theogony [Oxford 1966] ad 
922). His sister and companion was Eris, or 
‘Strife’ U/l. 4. 440-1) and his daughters were 
the fierce -* Amazons (Pherecydes, FGH 3 F 
15a); in the Cyclic Aethiopis (fr. 1) he is 
already the father of Penthesileia. Among 
his sons he counted Phobos 'Rout' and 
Deimos, ‘Terror’ (West, Hesiod: Theogony, 
comm. ad 934; add Artemidorus 2.34), the 
brutal Lapith Phlegyas (R. JANKO, The Iliad: 
A commentary IV [Cambridge 1992], comm. 
on /]. 13.301-303), Askalaphos, or the night- 
ly, predatory ‘owl’ (JANKo, comm. on I. 
13.478-480), and the great hunter Meleagros 
(Hesiod fr. 25)—genealogy being a typical 
Greek way of connecting related figures. 

As the god of war, who represents the 
brutal aspects of war not matters of defence, 
Ares is indispensable but he is often coupled 
with —Athena, the embodiment of responsi- 
bility and cleverness in battle. Thus on the 
shield of Achilles Homer (é/. 18.516) repre- 
sents Ares and Athena as leading the war- 
riors; Odysseus pretends that Ares and 
Athena had given him courage (Od. 14.216), 


86 


and on the vases the two gods often battle 
together; in archaic imagery Ares is even 
sometimes represented as helping with the 
birth of Athena (BRUNEAU 1984: 491). 

In the /liad we can observe various strat- 
egies of dealing with the negative sides of 
Ares. First, when Ares confronts Athena in 
battle, he is always the loser, as when the 
goddess helped Diomedes against Ares 
(5.824), disarmed him in order to prevent 
him avenging his son Askalaphos (15.121- 
141) and knocked him down with a stone 
(21.391-415). Similarly, when in Ps- 
Hesiods's Shield Heracles battles against 
Ares’ son Cycnus, who wanted to build a 
temple from human skulls, he wins due to 
the help of Athena despite Ares’ support of 
his son: it is always the goddess of clever- 
ness and responsibility who wins. It fits in 
with Ares being a ‘loser’ that on the frieze 
of the treasure house of Siphnos and on 
archaic vases he is mostly positioned at the 
very margin of the representation (BRUNEAU 
1984:491). 

The complicated relationship between 
Ares and Athena is also well brought out in 
the foundation myth of Thebes as related by 
‘Apollodorus’ (3.4.1-2). When Cadmus had 
reached Thebes, he killed a dragon, an 
offspring of Ares, who guarded a fountain. 
On the advice of Athena he sowed the teeth 
of the monster which grew into armed men, 
the Spartoi. These, in tum, started to fight 
with one another and only five survived this 
fratricidal strife. Subsequently, Cadmus had 
to serve Ares for a whole year in order to 
atone for his share in their death. After his 
servitude he became king of Thebes through 
Athena and married the daughter of Ares 
and ~Aphrodite, Harmonia: ‘murderous war 
ends in harmonious order’ (BURKERT 
1985:170). Here as well, it is in the end 
Athena who helps Cadmus to defeat the 
influence of Ares. 

A more drastic approach is mentioned in 
iliad 5:385-391 (see also Nonnus, Dion. 
302-304), one of the very few real Ares 
myths. Here Homer tells how the sons of 
Aloeus, Otos and Ephialtes, tied the god 
down and locked him up in a bronze barrel 


ARES 


for thirteen months. He only survived be- 
cause the stepmother of his captors passed 
word to -*Hermes, who managed to liberate 
him; variants of the story are also recorded 
in much later sources (FARAONE 1992:86- 
87). The myth seems to be the reflection of 
a cult in which the statue of Ares was nor- 
mally fettered but untied only once a year 
(so already FARNELL 1909:407). Similar 
cults all point to gods which are perceived 
as dangerous for the social order (GRAF 
1985:81-96). The dangerous nature of these 
gods is sometimes stressed by the small size 
and uncanny appearance of their statues and 
the tradition that the statue of Ares which 
Pausanias (3.19.7) saw on the road from 
Sparta to Therapnai was fetched from far- 
away Colchi by the Dioscures (—Dios- 
kouroi) points in the same direction, 

Cults of Ares were few and far between; 
not even Thebes seems to have known a 
temple dedicated to Ares, unlike Athens and 
various cities on the Peloponnesus and Crete 
(GRAF 1985:265). The marginality of Ares 
is underscored by the fact that he received a 
dog for sacrifice, just like spooky Hecate 
and messy Eileithyia: Ares’ cult did not lead 
to eating peacefully together as would have 
been the case with edible sacrifice (GRAF 
1985:422). It fits in with this asocial charac- 
ter of Ares’ cult that some, untrustworthy, 
traditions mention a human sacrifice to Ares 
among the Spartans (Apollodorus FGH 244 
F 125) and on Lemnos (Fulgentius, Ant. 
serm. 5, cf. Jacoby on Sosicrates FGH 461 
F 1). 

In some cities the macho nature of Ares 
was stressed by excluding women from his 
worship (Pausanias 2.22.4-5, 3.22.6), just as 
women were forbidden entry into the 
temples of Enyalios (Teles 24.11). This is 
the more natural ritual, yet the reverse also 
took place. It was told in Tegea that the 
women had once rescued the town by at- 
tacking the Spartans. After their victory the 
women performed the victory rites for Ares 
and the males did not even receive part of 
the sacrificial meat. In memory to this feat a 
stele to Ares Gynaikothoinas, ‘Feaster of 
Woman’ or ‘One whom the women feast’, 


87 


was erected in the Tegean agora. Apparent- 
ly, our source, Pausanias (8.48.4-5), no 
longer found a ritual, but the myth strongly 
suggests that at one time the Tegean women 
performed sacrifices in the Tegean agora 
from which the men were excluded. This 
uncommon female cult of the masculine god 
points to a ritual in which the normal social 
order was temporarily subverted (GRAF 
1984). 

Ares was regularly connected with 
Aphrodite in literature, as witnessed by the 
delightful story of their liaison (Od. 8.266- 
369); in art, where he seems to be represent- 
ed as even assisting with the birth of the 
goddess, as he did with Athena (BRUNEAU 
1984:491), and in cult, as their communal 
temples and altars show (GraF 1985:264). 
The connection rests on a twofold associ- 
ation. On the one hand, there is the warrior 
aspect of Aphrodite. On the other, there is 
the strong contrast between the two gods as 
expressed in the Homeric Hymn to Aphro- 
dite, which says of Athena that she took no 
pleasure ‘in the works of the golden Aphro- 
dite but liked wars and the work of Ares’ 
(9-10). The contrast also appears clearly in 
Thebes where the polemarchs celebrated the 
Aphrodisia at the end of their term of office. 
Here the cult of Aphrodite eases the transi- 
tion from warlike activities to peaceful pri- 
vate life by a festival of dissolution (GRAF 
1984:253-254), just as on Aegina an uncan- 
ny festival to masculine -*Poseidon was ter- 
minated with the Aphrodisia (Plutarch, Mor. 
301). Despite the opposition, the gods do 
belong together: as the foundation myth of 
Thebes shows, it is only the pairing of Arcs 
and Aphrodite which produces Harmonia 
(BREMMER 1994:45-46). 

At the end of the fifth century the import- 
ance of Ares seems to diminish. Admittedly, 
comedy could still nick-name the tough 
Athenian gencral Phormio (d. ca. 429/8) 
*Ares' (Eupolis fr. 268.15) and a bold man a 
‘young of Ares’ (Plato fr. 112), but on the 
Athenian vases the god is becoming only 
rarely recognizable. In the Hellenistic period 
Ares is only little mentioned (ROBERT, Hel- 
lenica X 77), but in the second century CE 


ARIEL 


one could still dream of being sexually 
taken by Ares (Artemidorus 5.87). 

Ill. In the Bible the name of Ares is 
commonly taken as occurring in the names 
of the Areopagus and Dionysius Areopagites 
(Acts 17). And indeed, folk etymology con- 
nected the 'hill of Ares' with the god by 
way of various myths. Yet there was no cult 
of the god on the hill and the most recent 
explanations tend to connect the first el- 
ement of the name with a homonym areios, 
‘solid’, and explain the name as ‘solid rock’ 
(WALLACE 1989:213-214). 

IV. Bibliography 
C. AuGÉ, Ares (in peripheria orientali), 
LIMC II.1 (1984) 493-495; I. BECK, Ares in 
Vasenmalerei, Relief und — Rundplastik 
(Mainz 1983); J. N. BREMMER, Greek Relig- 
ions (Oxford 1994); P. BRUNEAU, Ares, 
LIMC IL.1 (1984) 478-492; W. BURKERT, 
Greek Religion (Oxford 1985); C. A. FARA- 
ONE, Talismans and Trojan Horses. Guar- 
dian Statues in Ancient Greek Myth and 
Ritual (New York & Oxford 1992); L. R. 
FARNELL, The Cults of the Greek States V 
(Oxford 1909) 396-414; F. GRAF, Women, 
War, and Warlike Divinities, ZPE 55 (1984) 
245-254, Graf, Nordionische Kulte (Rome 
1985); A. HEUBECK, Amphiaraos, Die 
Sprache 17 (1971) 8-22; F. JouAN, Le dieu 
Arts: figure rituelle et image littéraire, Le 
point théologique 52 (1989) 125-140; B. 
MAADER, Ares, LfgrE I (Göttingen 1979) 
1246-1265; M. PETERS, Probleme mit an- 
lautenden Laryngalen, Die Sprache 32 
(1986) 365-383; L. ROBERT, Hellenica l- 
XIII (Paris 1940-1965); ROBERT, Documents 
de l'Asie Mineure méridionale (Paris & 
Geneva 1966); H. SEYRIG, Les dieux armés 
et les Arabes en Syrie, Syria 47 (1970) 77- 
112; R. W. WALLACE, The Areopagos 
Council to 307 B.C. (Baltimore & London 
1989); P. WATHELET, Arès le mal aimé, Les 
Etudes Classiques 60 (1992) 113-128. 


J. N. BREMMER 


ARIEL FN8ÖNS 
I. The term Ariel occurs 16 times in 
different spellings in the OT and once in the 


88 


Moabite Mesha-inscription (KA/ 181:12, the 
suggested second occurrence in line 17 is 
doubtful). The meaning of the word is dis- 
puted among scholars. Regarding its etymo- 
logy. several propositions have been made 
(cf. HALAT 84-85; Ges.18 98-99; NBL 167; 
ABD I 377-378 & lit), but only two of the 
suggested derivations seem to be applicable: 
1. < *ryh ‘lion’ with the theophoric element 
?| *God'. 2. « Ar "iryat with afformative 
lamed ‘fire-pit’ or more freely ‘altar-hearth’ 
(for the Moabite occurrence sec J. Horru- 
ZER & K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the 
North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 1 [Leiden 
1995} 100-101 & lit; K. P. Jackson 
1989:112-113). 

II. In Gen 46:16 and Num 26:17 (spel- 
led ?r?ly) Ariel serves as an eponym of the 
tribe of Gad. In Ezra 8:16 (with the spelling 
?ry?l; par 1 Esdr l60vnos) it is the PN of a 
leader of the exiled community. It is gene- 
rally accepted that in the visionary text Ezek 
43:15.16 Ariel (^r^y| paralleled by Ar7l, 
‘mountain of God’) stands for the uppermost 
part of the -*altar in the future temple (W. 
ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel [BKAT XIII/2; Neukir- 
chen-Vluyn 1969] 1089-1096, esp. 1093- 
1094). The reference in Isa 29:1.2.7 is more 
difficult to explain. Here Arie! (spelled 
?^ry?l, 1QIsa 29:1 ?rw?l) refers definitely to 
the city of Jerusalem (J. WERLITZ [BZAW 
204; Berlin/New York 1992] 310) but 
again, without any clear meaning. One 
should therefore leave it untranslated in this 
passage. 

Little casier is the translation of Ariel in 
2 Sam 23:20 (par. 1 Chr 11:22 ?ry7/). In the 
description of Benayah's heroic deeds, the 
reader is told that Benayah stroke (nkh) two 
?r?| mw?b (MT; the passage is grammatical- 
ly difficult, cf. the commentaries). LXX 
reads that Benayah killed tog úo vioùs 
AptnA. toU Maaf, ‘the two sons of Ariel the 
Moabite'. Although the LXX interferes 
seriously in the text, presupposing a double 
haplography in the Hebrew text, this reading 
points into the right direction. As a matter of 
fact NKH Hiph‘il in the historical books 
never means to strike upon an object (cf. 
also E. JENNI, Eris 24 [1993] 114-118), but 


ARM 


to strike down, i.e. to kill somebody, so the 
translation with ‘altar-hearth’ is not applica- 
ble. Consequently, Arnel here designates 
some kind of person, best translated as ‘lion 
of God’ by the first of the possible etymolo- 
gies, be it a warrior or a mythical figure of 
yet unknown religious background (but cf. 
P. Beck, The cultstands from Taanach, 
From Nomadism to Monarchy (ed. I. Finkel- 
stein & N. Na'aman; Jerusalem 1994) 352- 
381 passim, for the iconography of lions on 
cult stands in Palestine). This interpretation 
could be supported by a recently found 
bronze-silver figurine from Tell Abü el- 
Kharaz in Transjordan representing, accor- 
ding to the excavators opinion (P. M. 
FiscHER, ADAJ 40 [1996] 101-110, esp. 
103-104 with figs. 3a-b), a male lion-faced 
warrior(-god?), which can be viewed, becau- 
se of its appearance and its attributes, as a 
male pendant to the Egyptian goddess Sekh- 
met (-*lioness). In addition to this one might 
point to a stele found in Qadbun (Syria) 
depicting Baal standing on a lion (cf. A. 
BouNNi, Contributi e materiali di archeolo- 
gia orientale 3 (1992] 141-150 with paral- 
lels). Thus the same motiv, i.e. the lion as 
riding-animal or as an attribute-animal to a 
male god, can also be found on seals (cf. the 
cone-shaped seal found in Megiddo publis- 
hed in: O. KEEL Studien zu den Stempelsie- 
geln aus Palästina/israel, IV [OBO 135; 
Göttingen/Fribourg 1994] 22-23, pl. 7,5 with 
parallels). 

This connection could also fit well to the 
translation of the term °r7/ with ‘lion figure’ 
in the Mesha-inscription suggested by J. C. 
L. GiBsoN (TSSI 1, 76 and 80). In this 
inscription ^r?! is connected to dwdh 
(7*Do4). the epithet of a locally worshipped 
god in Atarot. The passage in line 12 then 
should be translated with ‘the lion figure of 
their beloved (god)’ which was dragged 
before -*Chemosh after the fall of the Israe- 
lite city. 

HI, It is mainly due to Isa 33:7, the last 
occurrence in the OT to be cited, that Ariel 
entered heavenly spheres. In this lament the 
?r?lm (most probably the plural form of 7r7/; 
for the impressive history of the term in this 


89 


text (cf. R. D. Weis in Tradition of the Text 
[FS Barthelémy; ed. G. J. Norton & S. 
Pisano; OBO 109; Góttingen/Fribourg 1991] 
285-292) are paralleled by ‘the messengers 
of peace’ (cf. also Isa 52:7). Probably on the 
basis of this parallelism and the angelopha- 
nic context, the later tradition understood 
the ?r?Im, to be pronounced "er?ellim. as a 
class of -*angels, an evolution which may 
well have been stimulated by the difficult 
etymology of Ariel (OLYAN 1993: 53-54.101 
with references). In the 3rd/4th century text 
‘On the Origins of the World” from Nag 
Hamadi (NHC 1I, 5:100, 25) Ariel, spelled 
Ariael, is the epithet of the lion-faced Yald- 
abaoth. In other gnostic writings Ariel beco- 
mes the ruler over the wind and over the 
furnaces of hell (J. MICHL, 1962:204). 
IV. Bibliography 

K. P. JACKSON, The Language of the Mesha 
Inscription, Studies in the Mesha Inscription 
and Moab (ed. A. Dearman; Atlanta 1989) 
96-130; J. MicHLt, Engel V (Katalog der 
Engelnamen), RAC 5 (Stuttgart 1962) 200- 
239 (& lit); S. M. Otyan, A Thousand 
Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and the 
Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism (TSAJ 
36; Tübingen 1993). 


S. MÜNGER 


ARM Zi 

I. Within the framework of anthropo- 
morphic depictions of the divine, the arm 
(zéróa^) of God is metaphorically used to 
denote divine military, creative and caring 
power in the Old Testament. At Isa 63:12 
the ‘arm of God’ functions as a hypostasis. 
In an Aramaic inscription from Taima, about 
400 BCE, dr“', ‘Arm’, seems to be an indica- 
tion for a deity. 

II. In Ugaritic texts, mention is made of 
the dr‘, ‘arm’, of deities like ->Baal and 
—El without any specific significance other 
than the anthropomorphic depiction of the 
divine (KORPEL 1990:109). 

An Aramaic inscription from Taima, 
about 400 BCE, mentions a dedication by 
Taymu, the son of Elahu, for the life of his 
soul and the souls of some other persons to 


ARTA 


dr'', ‘Arm’ (BEYER & LIVINGSTONE 1990). 
That a deity is indicated can be inferred 
from the parallel sentence construction in a 
contemporary Aramaic inscription from 
Ismaila: “This is, what Qayma, the son of 
Geshem, the king of Qedar, has dedicated 
Ihn'lt, *to (the deity) han-'Elat" (TSSI 25). 
A full identification is premature, however, 
in view of the fact that a deity ‘Arm’ is 
nowhere attested. 

III. In the OT zéróa^ is not known as a 
deity as such. The arm of God is referred to 
in several instances as a metaphorical indi- 
cation of his power (HELFMEYER 1975:652- 
660; KorreL 1990:111-112). God's arm 
stands for military power e.g. at Exod 15:16; 
Deut 4:34; Isa 30:30. This imagery is in 
most cases related to the liberation out of 
Egypt. God's arm stands for creative power 
in texts like Isa 51:9 and Ps 89:11.14, where 
the imagery is linked to the battle with the 
monstruous -*Rahab. God's arm is related 
to the depiction of > YHWH as a judge at Isa 
51:5; 59:16 and Ezek 20:33. 34. A connec- 
tion with caring power is present at e.g. 
Hos 11:3. YHWH is seen as a loving father 
who taught Ephraim to walk and who took 
him on the arm like a little boy. ‘Arm’ is 
used as a hypostasis in Isa 63:12. Here the 
zéróa^ stands for an independent power 
going side by side with ->Moses and stres- 
sing the function of YHWH as shepherd 
and leader of his people (HELFMEYER 
1975:656-657). 

IV. Bibliography 
K. BEYER & A. LiVINGSTONE, Eine neue 
reichsaramüische Inschrift aus Taima, 
ZDMG 140 (1990) 1-2; F. J. HELFMEYER, 
zeróa*, TWAT 5 (1975), 650-660; M. C. A. 
KonPEL, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and 
Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8; 
Münster 1990). 


B. BECKING 


ARTA 

I. The word arta, as theophoric element 
in the first part of the name Artaxerxes (e.g. 
Ezra 4:7), translates “the decisive confes- 
sional concept of Zoroastrianism (or 


90 


Mazdaism)", as LOMMEL wrote (1930:48). 
The written form arta in the name of the 
Achaemenid king represents both the 
specifically Old-Persian form of the word 
and the undifferentiated pan-Iranian form 
which was probably still in use at the time. 
In the Avesta, the sacred book of Mazdaism, 
the word became afa as a result of phonetic 
changes due to oral transmission, § probably 
representing a dorsal spirant that could bc 
noted phonetically as [Al]. 

aga corresponds to Vedic Sanskrit rid and 
represents therefore a notion inherited from 
a common Indo-Iranian tradition. Its mean- 
ing has been interpreted in three different 
ways: 

1. The meaning of 'truth'—the ancient 
meaning according to Plutarch (De /side et 
Osiride 47), who translates aja as àArj0gva— 
has been strongly championed by LüpERS 
(1959 passim), who believes it can cover 
every instance of the word. See also, more 
recently, SCHLERATH 1987:694-696. 

2. Since the very beginning of Indo- 
Iranian philology, a large number of special- 
ists have shared the opinion that such a fun- 
damental notion as aša/rrá “cannot be 
precisely rendered by some single word in 
another tongue” (see Boyce 1975:27) and 
that the word often occurs with what may be 
the original meaning of ‘order’, understood 
as cosmic, social, liturgical and moral order. 

3. More recently, the present author has 
defended the hypothesis that, at least in the 
oldest texts, a$a/rtá had kept the etymologi- 
cal sense of ‘organization’ or ‘lay-out’ 
(Indo-European *H2rtó -) and expressed, 
first and foremost, the principle of cohesion 
of the universe, the creator of which is the 
great god Ahura Mazda, metaphorically 
represented in the cosmogonic pattem 
showing the organization of the universe as 
the putting up of a tent (KELLENS 1991:41- 
47). 

II. The concept represented by aga was 
personified. In the ancient Avesta, Aša is the 
most frequently mentioned among an unde- 
termined number of entities composing a 
kind of secondary pantheon around Ahura 
Mazda, so that the allegory of truth or of the 


ARTEMIS 


cosmic organization is second in rank 
among the ancient Mazdaean deities. In the 
recent Avesta and in the Pahlavi books, Aga 
ranks second in the canonical group of the 
six amesa spenta, or “Beneficent Immortals” 
co-existing with the traditional Indo-Iranian 
pantheon. Its patronage of the element 
-*fire, which appears clearly in Sassanid 
Mazdaism, probably derives from the older 
conception that fire and light, pervading as 
they do the world of day, enable man to see 
the organization of the universe, while at the 
same time being its essential components 
(Lommel, in SCHLERATH 1976: 266-269; 
NARTEN 1982:121-123). 

The concept of aja concentrates all the 
elements of Mazdaean dualism. Its system- 
atic opposition to the concept of druj, or 
‘deceit’ (and not simply to its negative darta 
as in Vedic Sanskrit) creates a fundamental 
split among deities and among men, who are 
defined as afauuan, ‘followers of Aša’, or as 
dreguuant, ‘deccivers’, according to whether 
they support the one or the other principle. 

The enthronement name  artaxa(a. 
‘Artaxerxes’, may well be a *Zitatname’, re- 
producing a common clausula in the ancient 
Avesta by associating, without any necess- 
ary logical link, the names of the two en- 
tities afa and xsaBra (‘power’) (KELLENS & 
PiRART 1988:40). 

III. Bibliography 
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, 
Vol 1 (Leiden 1975) 27; J. KELLENS, Zoro- 
astre et l'Avesta ancien (Paris 1991) 41-47; 
J. KELLENS & E. PIRART, Les textes vieil- 
avestiques, Vol 1 (Wiesbaden 1988) 40; H. 
LoMMEL, Die Religion Zarathustras (Tü- 
bingen 1930) 48; H. Lipers, Varuna Il 
(Gottingen 1959); J. Narten, Die Amega 
Spentas im Avesta (Wiesbaden 1982) 121- 
123; B. ScHLERATH (ed.), Zarathustra 
(Darmstadt 1976) 266-269; SCHLERATH, 
Aga, Encyclopaedia lranica, Vol 2 (Lon- 
don/New York 1987) 694-696. 


J. KELLENS 


ARTEMIS “Aptepic 
I. Artemis is the Greek virgin goddess 


91 


originally of hunting and animal fertility. lt 
occurs as a divine name in Acts 19 (in 
Jewish literature only Sib. Or. 5,293-295); 
morcover one of Paul's companions had the 
theophoric name ‘Aptepac, a hypocoristic 
derived from ‘Aptepidmpos ‘gift of Artemis’ 
(Titus 3:12). Being the divine huntress, her 
name, especially its Doric-Acolian form 
“Aptapic, has been connected etymological- 
ly with Attic Gptajiog ‘butcher; staughterer’, 
or else with apx(t)o¢ ‘bear’, because the 
bear was one of the animals sacrificed to 
her, and her young priestesses were some- 
times called 'she-bears'. Both explanations 
fail, however, to account for the phonetic 
difference in Attic between her name and 
the adduced appellatives from that same dia- 
lect, unless one supposes that “Aptepic 
itself is not originally Attic but stems from 
yet another dialect. It has even been sug- 
gested, therefore, that the form “Aprtayic, 
the other way round, owes its existence to 
popular etymology on the basis of aptapoc. 
In the Linear-B tablets from Pylos her name 
occurs twice, as A-te-mi-to (gen. sg), and as 
A-ti-mi-te (dat. sg.). The alternative expla- 
nation, now generally adopted, is that her 
name is not Indo-European at all, but of pre- 
Greek origin, like those of so many other 
Greek gods and heroes. In Lydian she was 
called Artimus, in Etruscan Artumes (nom. 
sg.), Aritimi (dat. sg.), in Imperial Aramaic 
she appears as VIN (KA/ 260B7) or 
OVS (Fouilles de Xanthos V1, p. 137 line 
24). Unlike that of her brother ->Apollo, the 
Romans and Latins did not take over her 
Greek name, but identified her, instead, with 
the indigenous Diana. 

II. General Survey. In Greece Artemis is 
attested since 1200 BcE, and in Greek litera- 
ture from Homer onward. According to the 
most current version of her myth she was 
the elder twin-sister of Apollo, the two of 
them being the offspring of -*Zeus and his 
first cousin Leto, a daughter of the Titans 
Coeus and -*Phoebe. As the pregnant Leto 
had to roam in flight from -*Hera, the 
jealous spouse of Zeus, she gave birth to 
Artemis in Ortygia or ‘quails’ land’, which 
some located near Ephesus. Subsequently 


ARTEMIS 


she bore Apollo in the island of Delos, at 
this second birth being assisted according to 
some authors by her new-born daughter 
Artemis. Originally the realm of Artemis 
was the world of wild animals and natural 
vegetation. Homer summarizes her character 
as “Mistress of the Animals (xótvia 0npóv), 
Artemis the Huntress” who uses “to kill the 
animals in the mountains” (/liad 21,470- 
471,485). 

Positively, therefore, she is the one who 
rules over fertility in general, in particular 
the fertility of women, over animals hunted 
by man such as the deer and the boar, and 
wild trees. She is also the one who keeps 
under control animals that are dangerous to 
mankind, such as the bear and the wolf. To 
a lesser extent cultivated trees, cereals and 
domesticated animals seem to have fallen 
under her sway as well. With the other gods 
she was entitled to the first fruits of the 
annual crops. At Patrae, in archaic times, the 
human sacrifices made to her wore on their 
heads garlands of com ears (Pausanias 
7,20,1). In Thasos she was venerated under 
the epithet of MwAd or ‘Protectress of 
Foals’, in other places as Aagv(a)ia or 
‘Goddess of the Laurel’. Normally, how- 
ever, it was Demeter who made the com 
grow, -*Poseidon who was the horse-god, 
and Apollo to whom the laurel was especial- 
ly sacred. Moreover, she never competed 
with —Dionysus or -Athena as far as thc 
vine or the olive tree were concerned. 

Negatively, she could show her power by 
killing women in childbirth, by sending 
monsters by way of punishment, such as the 
‘Calydonian’ Boar to Calydon in order to 
devastate the arable land and kill the cattle, 
because its inhabitants had forgotten to 
include her name in the invocations at the 
annual sacrifice. She changed her hunting 
companion Callisto into a she-bear, because 
she was found to be pregnant. When her 
temple at Patrac had been desecrated she 
caused the earth to yield no harvest and sent 
diseases as well (Pausanias 7,19,3). Being 
generally of a rather vindictive character, 
she had the hunter Actaeon killed by his 
own hounds for having seen her naked when 
bathing, and -*Orion by a scorpion because 


92 


he had tried to rape her; together with her 
brother she shot down six of the seven 
daughters and six of the seven sons of 
Niobe, who had insulted her mother Leto for 
having only two children. 

Only seldom in myth does she help a 
human, one of the rare instances being little 
Atalanta who had been exposed on Mt. 
Parthenion by her father, because he only 
wanted sons. Her life was saved by a she- 
bear who suckled her. After that she grew 
up to be a swift-footed virgin huntress, who 
would only marry the man that could beat 
her in running. The bear, being one of Arte- 
mis’ sacred animals, had, of course, been 
sent by the goddess (Apollodorus, Libr. 
3,9,2). For the rest her myths are concerned 
with killing, and, unlike the mythology of 
other goddesses, not at all with love. 

Being a huntress, she is often depicted 
carrying bow and arrows. So is her brother 
Apollo, but in his case because his original 
function probably was to protect the herds 
from the attacks of wolves, hence in all 
likelihood his epithet Auxetog. This is ex- 
plained as ‘wolf-killing’ by Sophocles 
(Electra 6-7), but secondarily interpreted as 
‘Lycian’ because his mother Leto was in 
reality a Lycian goddess. His Homeric epi- 
thet Auxmyevrig would then be the equiv- 
alent of Antoyevńç. In Troezen, to match 
her brother in this respect, Anemis was 
venerated as Avxeta, while Apollo in his 
tum was sometimes invoked as ‘the Hunter’ 
(Aypevs, ‘Aypatos). 

As Artemis had a special relation to 
women, presiding over their fertility and 
being called upon during the hours of labour 
(epithets: Aexo and Aoxeia, ‘protectress of 
the child-bed’, LwwSiva, ‘who saves from 
travail’), she was naturally in course of time 
also connected via the menstrual cycle with 
the moon. As a counterpart to this devel- 
opment, but for other reasons, her brother 
became the god of the sun. Here a third ety- 
mology of Avxeiog has played its part, the 
one which derived it from AvKn ‘moming 
twilight’ (cf. Macrobius, Sat. 1,17,36-41). In 
both cases the connections with the celestial 
bodies are clearly secondary; they are still 
unknown to Homer. For Hesiod, too, Selene 


ARTEMIS 


and her brother Helios are still the child- 
ren of the Titans Hyperión and Theia 
(Theog. 371). but in later times Philo of 
Alexandria could simply say that some of 
mankind (i. c. the Greeks) "call the moon 
Artemis” (De decal. 54). A further paral- 
lelism between Artemis and Apollo is the 
unmarried status of both, Artemis being 
emphatically venerated as a virgin. This lat- 
ter characteristic may be in accordance with 
the fact that the wild animals with whom 
she is often associated, the deer, the boar 
and the bear. do not live in pairs, the bear 
normally living solitary outside the mating 
season. The sacrifices made to her were the 
wild animals mentioned, also wolves, even a 
fox at Ephesus, goats, edible birds and the 
fruits of trees. There are several testimonies 
to earlier human sacrifices having been 
replaced by other rites. The most widely 
known reminiscence of the former practice 
is, of course, the story of king Agamem- 
non’s daughter Iphigeneia, who was 
sacrificed but in the last moment replaced by 
a hind or a she-bear. In spite of the OT 
instances of Isaac and -*Jephtha's daughter, 
pagan gods were readily criticized by Chris- 
tian church fathers on the point of human 
sacrifices; Artemis, e.g, by Tatian (Or. 
29,2). 

Artemis was depicted as wearing a short 
hunting tunic or a long robe (‘Apteptg 
xateotaAuévn). In iconography she is often 
accompanied by a hind and carries bow and 
quiver, sometimes a torch. The latter at- 
tribute she assumed from the goddess 
Hecate, with whom she was often identified 
because the two shared a number of charac- 
teristics (such as her lunar associations). Her 
appearance in dreams of hunters or pregnant 
women was considered a propitious sign, 
but when she appeared naked it was an ill 
omen (Artemidorus, Onirocr. 2,35). 

She was widely venerated in Greece and 
more particularly in Asia Minor, sometimes 
together with Apollo (so e. g. at Mantinea, 
Daphne near Antioch, Syracuse). Pausanias, 
who describes many local varieties of the 
different deities, each with a distinctive sur- 
name, lists no less than 64 of such epithets 
for Artemis, many of which are, of course. 


93 


only geographical, such as ‘Ephesia’. In this 
respect she was only marginally surpassed 
by Zeus (67 epithets); but she herself sur- 
passed Athena (59), Apollo (58), -Aphro- 
dite and Dionysus (both 27), and Demeter 
(26). Her great popularity was undoubtedly 
due to the fact that she was one of the rare 
goddesses who presided over the exclusively 
female aspects of life like pregnancy, child- 
birth and the rearing of infants. When boys 
and girls came of age they sacrificed a hair- 
lock to the goddess on the third and last day 
of the Apatouria or clan festival. A boy did 
so when his epheby ended and he was 
enlisted in his father's phratry or clan, and 
became a full-fledged citizen himself; girls 
made this sacrifice before their marriage was 
solemnized, probably in the phratry of the 
future husband. 

In various places the local calendar 
included a month named after Artemis: e.g. 
Artamitios at Sparta,  Artemisiaon at 
Erythrac, and Artemisios in the Macedonian 
calendar used in the Hellenistic kingdoms. 
In Athens the month was called Elaphé- 
bolión after her epithet Elaphébolos (‘deer 
huntress’); her festival, the Elaphébolia, was 
celebrated in this month. 

In Greece Artemis was at times conflated 
with other goddesses, mainly with Hecate, 
to whom she owed her association with 
magical practices. Abroad she was often 
identified with others, with several mother 
goddesses in Asia Minor, with the Near 
Eastem —Nanea (so 2 Macc 1,13, but 
Josephus’ version in Ant. 12,354 has 
"Artemis"), with the Persian Anaitis, one of 
the three imperial deities of the later Achae- 
menids, with the Thracian Bendis, with the 
Italian Diana, and in Egypt with (Bu)bastis, 
i. e. Bastet, the cat-goddess. 

ITI. As there is no way of knowing which 
Artemis the parents of Artemas (Titus 3,12) 
had in mind when they gave a name to their 
son, the further NT references to the god- 
dess are only to the Artemis of Ephesus. All 
the same it was this man who unwittingly 
retained the name of the goddess in Chris- 
tian times, for in later tradition he was con- 
sidered to haye belonged to the seventy 
apostles, and to have become bishop of 


ARTEMIS 





Lystra. As a consequence a festive day was 
devoted to him in the calendar on the 21st 
of June. 

Artemis Ephesia was an early 
identification with one of the various Ana- 
tolian fertility and mother goddesses, an 
identification which may well go back to the 
very first Greek immigrants in the 11th cen- 
tury BCE. The name of the indigenous god- 
dess was probably Upis (Callimachus, Hymn 
to Artemis 240) or Opis (Macrobius, Sat. 
5,22,4-6). It was this particular cult of Arte- 
mis, which in the course of the ages, be- 
came more important than all her other local 
cults and was world famous by the time of 
Paul. Her temple, built by Chersiphron and 
his son Metagenes, was so imposing that it 
was the only one, so Solinus, that was 
spared by king Xerxes when he was setting 
fire to all the other Greek sanctuaries in 
Asia (Solinus 40,2-4). In 356 BCE it never- 
theless succumbed to the torch in the hand 
of Herostratus, whose sole purpose it was to 
become in this way as famous as the build- 
ing itself; as a result his name is now better 
known than those of the architects. After it 
had been rebuilt by Dinocrates it was tradi- 
tionally reckoned among the Seven Wonders 
of the World, and functioned not only as a 
sanctuary, but also as a place of asylum and 
as a bank of deposit. In the last mentioned 
capacity it had already been used by Xeno- 
phon in the period between his military 
expedition to Persia and the Spartan war 
against Boeotia, in which he also took part. 
Paul’s younger contemporary, Dio Chryso- 
stom of Prusa, describes it as a place where 
people from all over the Roman empire, pri- 
vate persons, allied kings and townships, 
had deposited large sums of money (Or. 
31,54). Although Dio denies it, there are 
others who say that this money was also lent 
out (Nicolaus of Damascus frg 65). The area 
of the asylum had had different extents in 
the course of time, but was finally reduced 
by Augustus, because it attracted too many 
criminals (Strabo 14,1,23). The new arca 
was probably marked by boundary stones 
like the one which carries this bilingual 
inscription: “Imp. Caesar Augustus fines 
Dianae restituit. Avtoxpadtwp Kaicap 


94 


Zepaotóg ópoug 'Aptéjiót Groxatéotnoev" 
(IGLS 3239). The goddess, however, was 
also the owner of estates in the neighbour- 
hood, marked by similar stones. 

The regular cult as well as the festivals 
attracted many visitors from abroad for 
whom lodging and nutrition had to be 
provided. In addition to this there was a 
whole industry of miniature Artemis 
temples, which may have been both dedica- 
tory gifts and souvenirs, and although they 
are known only from the 7th century, the 
silver pins carrying a bee, the sacred animal 
of Artemis Ephesia, were in all likelihood 
still fabricated in the Roman period as well. 
Altogether this means that the temple of ‘the 
Goddess’ was one of the major sources of 
wealth and prosperity for Ephesus, of which 
the economical importance can hardly be 
overestimated. 

Although ‘Ephesia’ may have been in ori- 
gin an Anatolian mother goddess, like the 
Phrygian Matar Kubileya (->Cybele), the 
identification with Artemis was carried 
through to the very point of virginity, so that 
the poet Antipater of Sidon around 125 BCE 
could call her temple a ‘Parthenon’, like that 
of her virgin half-sister Athena. She was 
also a huntress, for hunting weapons were 
carried by those who formed her festive pro- 
cession, in which horses and hounds par- 
aded as well. The Ephesians maintained, 
however, that both Artemis and Apollo had 
been born on Asian soil. Another difference 
was that she always wore a long robe and a 
kind of apron covered with what were and 
are usually considered to be female breasts, 
a token of fertility. This interpretation as 
roAvpaotog goes back to Antiquity (e. g. 
Minucius Felix, Oct. 22,5), but is certainly 
secondary, for a similar apron is worn by 
the male Zeus Labraundenus of Tegea. And 
as it is stated in so many words of yet an- 
other goddess, Berecynthia, that she was 
covered with testicles, what Ephesia was 
wearing were in all likelihood the testicles 
of the bulls sacrificed to her. The bee was 
her sacred animal, and as it does not itself 
procreate, it may have been a symbol of her 
chastity. It appears on the coins of Ephesus 
from the 7th to the 3rd centuries BCE, after 


ARTEMIS 





that the image of the goddess herself begins 
to replace her emblem. The virgins, who 
served in her cult as priestesses, were also 
called péAicoar ‘bees’, and because the 
queen-bee, whose function was not under- 
stood in Antiquity, was mostly thought to be 
male and called ‘the king’, one of the titles 
of her priests was €oonv, an indigenous 
word for ‘ruler’. According to Strabo those 
priests had to be eunuchs (14,1.23). but 
Pausanias states that they only had to 
abstain from sexual intercourse for a period 
of one year (8.1.3). The change may be due 
to the intervening edict of Hadrian, who for- 
bade castration even if consent was given 
(Digestae 48,8,4,2). Both priests and priest- 
esses had to sacrifice their fertility to the 
goddess in their own way. 

Without the slightest doubt it was 
Artemis who was the most important deity 
of the city. An inscription calls her “the 
goddess who rules (npoeotQooa) our city" 
(SIG 867,29). Other epithets, like Meyiotn. 
as well as MeyáAn (Acts 19:26; cf. Achilles 
Tatius 8,9,13) and TIpoto0povia, emphasize 
that she was first in rank, but certainly not 
the only deity venerated. No less than about 
twenty-five other gods were worshipped in 
Ephesus, among whom there were several 
Egyptian deities. This latter point is of some 
importance for the interpretation of Acts 19, 
because it underlines that the opposition 
described was hardly against the introduc- 
tion of a foreign god as such. 

As the bilingual boundary stone of 
Augustus shows, the Romans also referred 
to Artemis Ephesia as 'Diana'. In fact the 
cult statuc in her temple on the Aventine 
Hill in Rome was supposed to be the copy 
of the statue in Marseille, which, in turn, 
was a replica of the Ephesian statue (Strabo 
4,1,5). Consequently, the Vulgate version 
also has 'Diana' in Acts 19, and this was 
then taken over by Luther's version, the 
King James Version, etc. 

The Ephesian goddess had filial sanctu- 
aries all over the world, not only in nearby 
Greece (Alea; Scillus, founded by Xeno- 
phon), but also in Massalia (Marseille), and 
even as far away as Hemeroscopion in Spain 
(Denia). According to inscriptions the god- 


95 


dess communicated with her adherents and 
worked through oracles and epiphanies, and 
is reported to have effected healings. It is 
often stated by modern scholars that she was 
particularly connected with magic. This was 
indeed the case, but not particularly so, and 
she owed this connection mostly to her 
being identified with Hecate, the goddess of 
magic par excellence. That may explain why 
the Christian Tatian can say rather curtly: 
"Artemis is a magos" (Or. ad. Gr. 8,2). The 
emphasis, therefore, which is laid on this 
aspect is hardly justified, and has probably 
been brought about by the simple fact that 
in Acts 19 the story of the burning of magic 
books at Ephesus is immediately followed 
by one about the riot of the silversmiths in 
favour of Artemis, but such a burning could 
easily have happened elsewhere, too. A 
second factor has undoubtedly been the fact 
that magical words and formulae were often 
called ‘ephesia grammata’ in Antiquity. Yet 
it is not at all certain that this means ‘Ephes- 
ian’ and a derivation from &óe£oig (from 
Edinut ‘send against; put on’) is quite poss- 
ible. That such words were inscribed on the 
statue of Artemis Ephesia is stated only by 
Pausanias the Lexicographer (2nd cent. CE), 
but is not corroborated by others or by 
iconographical data. It is also true that the 
name of Artemis, or characteristic epithets 
of hers like 'loyéaipa or Avxo arc found in 
the magical papyn, in the hymns and 
prayers that form part of them, but here 
again, nearly always together with the name 
of Hecate or epithets of hers like Tpi- 
xåpavoç, Tpioðitiç, Kuvo, etc. Only once 
does she occur here with her epithet 
Avxatva, and without Hecate, in a spell for 
procuring knowledge of future events in 
which now also -*Isis, —Osiris, -*Amun, 
-*Moses, laó, and -*Helios -Mithras play a 
part (PGM HI 434). Finally, the collection 
of magical papyri contains a love charm 
which does not mention Artemis, but only 
her or Selene's epithet Phdsphoros. The 
verso of this papyrus makes it clear, how- 
ever, who this particular Phosphoros is, as it 
carries a drawing which unmistakably 
depicts the *many-breasted” Artemis Ephesia. 
Morcover, it makes mention of Phnun, here 


ARTEMIS 


rather “the Abyss” than the Egyptian god 
Nun, and ends with a triple invocation of 
Ið (PGM LXXVIII). The latter two in- 
stances may show how syncretistic magic 
could be: a situation in which the distinctive 
character of each individual deity is hardly 
highlighted. 

In Ephesus the whole month Artemisión 
was sacred to her and all its days were holy 
days, which implied int. al. that all juridical 
activity had ceased. The main festival was 
the Artemisia during which sacrifices, ban- 
quets, processions and games took place. 
There were also mysteries and mystic 
sacrifices, but no further details are known 
about their character, except that they were 
performed by the college of six or more 
‘curetes’, in the sacred grove ‘Ortygia’, or 
on Mt. Solmissos above it (Strabo 14,1,20). 
They were named after those ancient curetes 
or armed dancers who, at the binh of 
Artemis, had made such a terrible noise that 
they frightened away the jealous Hera. 
This motif has undoubtedly been taken over 
from the story of the birth of Zeus in Crete, 
in which the curetes play a comparable role. 
The original function of these priests may 
have been to represent the Artemis temple 
and its estates in the city council of Ephesus. 

IV. The presence of Jews in Asia goes 
back at least to about 345 Bce when the 
philosopher Aristotle met there with a Jew 
who had come from Coele-Syria and who 
could converse with him in Greek (Josephus, 
Apion 1,176-182). King Seleucus I started to 
grant to the Jews who lived there civic 
rights in specific places, and so probably did 
his grandson Antiochus II (Josephus Ant. 
12,119;125). These rights amounted at least 
to isonomia (ibid. 16,160), which implied 
that Jews were allowed to live there in 
accordance with their own laws and 
customs, so that Jewish and Greek legis- 
lation were both treated as equally valid by 
the king. Such a construction harbours, of 
course, the seeds of conflicts, and these 
arose on several occasions during the first 
century BCE. The pagans asked whether 
Jews were not obliged to venerate their 
gods, too, and whether it was permissible 


96 


for them to collect their own temple-tax and 
send it to Jerusalem. Both questions reveal 
that the Jewish practice was considered 
detrimental to the local economy, all citizens 
having to contribute to Artemis, for in- 
stance, instead of transferring large sums 
abroad. The Jews on their part objected 
against having to appear in law-courts on 
the sabbath, and also against military ser- 
vice. The Roman officials, however, re- 
peatedly reinforced the principle of iso- 
nomy, so that the Jews could not be forced 
to transgress their own laws. It should be 
noted in this connection that, in general, 
Jews were not averse to bearing pagan 
theophoric names. As far as Artemis is con- 
cerned, this is confirmed by an Egyptian 
papyrus from the 2nd cent. BCE which men- 
tions a “Dositheos, son of Artemidoros, 
Jew” (CPJ 30,18); Dio Cassius, too, makes 
mention of an Artemión, who was the leader 
of the Jewish revolt in Cyprus around 117 
CE (Roman Hist. 68,32). 

This unstable equilibrium was en- 
dangered when Paul, outside the synagogue. 
started to preach that man-made idols were 
not gods at all (Acts 19,9-10; 26; cf. 17,29). 
Apparently, this idea had thusfar never been 
propagated by Jews except within their own 
congregation. Earlier, persons who had 
insulted and violated the filial cult of the 
goddess in Sardis had even been sentenced 
to death (/. Eph. 1a,2; IV BCE). Quite under- 
standably, since Paul was naturally to be 
considered as one of its members, the other 
Jews wanted to put things right by distanc- 
ing themselves from him or even declaring 
him to be an apostate (Acts 19:33-34). This, 
however, did not help much. The motley 
crowd that flocked together in the theatre 
apparently knew quite well that the Jews, 
although they did not directly endanger the 
manufacture and sale of the silver Artemis 
temples, were not venerators of the goddess 
either. The core of Paul’s preaching against 
her, viz. that her statue was man-made and 
not divine, was dismissed by the ‘secretary’ 
of the city as incorrect by the use of one 
single word only. He simply reminded his 
audience of the fact that the statue was 510- 


ARVAD 


netés, “fallen down from Zeus” or “from 
heaven” (Acts 19,35), and therefore of di- 
vine origin. In some cases this could imply 
that an image had been made out of a me- 
teorite, but it is known for a fact that the 
statue of Artemis Ephesia was a rather dark 
wooden image (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 16,213- 
214). Centuries earlier the Athenian audi- 
ence of Euripides found nothing contradic- 
tory in the assertion that a wooden image of 
Artemis had as such fallen down from 
heaven (/ph. Taur. 87-88; 977; 1044-1045). 
In the 2nd century, Athenagoras wrote an 
apology for the Christian religion to Marcus 
Aurelius and his son Commodus. It devotes 
a whole chapter to famous cult statues of the 
time and mentions the various sculptors who 
had carved them so as to show that they 
were man-made and not divinc. It is certain- 
ly no coincidence that the statue of Artemis 
of Ephesus opens the enumeration becausc 
of its role in the NT. Athenagoras ascribes it 
to Endoeus, a pupil of the well-known 
Daedalus who was the architect of the 
Cretan labyrinth (Supp. 17,4). 

In the Letter to the Church of Ephesus in 
the Book of Revelation, the congregation is 
praised for not having yielded to the doc- 
trine of the Nicolaitans (2:6), which held 
that Christians were allowed to eat meat 
sacrificed to idols (2:14-15). At Ephesus this 
would certainly have involved the Anemis- 
cult. Some forty years earlier Paul, likewise, 
had forbidden this practice as long as it 
more or less implied one’s partaking of a 
sacred pagan meal (1 Cor 8; 10:28). But if 
such meat had found its way from a temple 
to a market it was, according to Paul, 
sufficiently secularized for Christians to eat 
it (1 Cor 10:25-27). 

The Jewish attitude towards the Artemis- 
cult can hardly ever have been much more 
positive than that of the Christians, and must 
have been comparable to some kind of 
armistice. The 5th book of the Sibylline 
Oracles, written under Marcus Aurelius, 
openly predicts her downfall, saying that her 
temple “by yawnings and quakes of the 
earth” will fall into the sea (293-297). Ironi- 
cally, the temple survived vandalization by 


the Goths in 263 CE and ended up as a 
Christian church; it was rather the retreating 
sea, which, through the silting up of the 
estuary of the river Cayster, ultimately 
caused Ephesus to become desolate with 
temple and all. 
V. Bibliography 

F. Gnar, Nordionische Kulte (Rome 1985) 
227-249, 410-417; K. HOENN, Artemis. 
Gestaltwandel einer Gétin (Zürich 1946); 
M. P. NiLSSON, Geschichte der griechischen 
Religion, vol. I (Munich 1955) 483-500; vol. 
II (Munich 1961) 368-369 (= Artemis Ephe- 
sia); H. J. Rose, A Handbook of Greek 
Mythology (London [6th ed. 1958] 1965) 
112-119; E. Siwow et al., LIMC II.1 (1984) 
618-855; H. WALTER, Griechische Gotter. 
Thre Gestaltwandel aus den Bewusstseinsstu- 
fen des Menschen dargestellt an den Bild- 
werken (Munich 1971) 203-216; R. FLEI- 
SCHER, Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte 
Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien 
(EPRO 35; Leiden 1973); NewDocs 4 
(1987) nrs 19 and 28; 5 (1989) nr 5 (pp. 
104-107); 6 (1992) nrs 29 and 30 (Artemis 
Ephesia). 


G. MUSSIES 


ARVAD TIN 

I. The city of Arvad (modern Ruad) is 
the most northem of Phoenician cities, situ- 
ated on an island two miles off-shore. Less 
illustrious than Tyre and Sidon, Arvad and 
its inhabitants are mentioned only a few 
times in the Bible (Gen 10:18//1 Chr 1:16; 
Ezek 27:8.11). It has been said that the city 
is homonymous with an Assyrian deity 
(Lewy 1934). 

IIl. In Neo-Assyrian annals, the city of 
Arvad is sometimes referred to as Ar-ma-da 
(S. PARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 
6; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1970] 37). This spel- 
ling corresponds exactly to that of the god 
Armada whose name has been read in a 
dedicatory brick inscription of Shalmaneser 
III (858-824 BCE). The text in question (O. 
SCHROEDER, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur his- 
torischen Inhalts, Vol. 2 [WVDOG 37; 
Leipzig 1922] no. 103) quotes the king as 


97 


ASHAM 


saying "a golden (statue of) Armada of the 
temple of Assur my lord, which did not 
exist before, I made upon my own intuition" 
(lines 4-6: JAr-ma-da 3a € AS+sur EN-ia, 54 
ina pa-na la ib-§u, ina hi-sa-at SA-ia ša 
KÜ.GI e-pu-iu; for a translation of the text 
see also ARAB 1, no. 709 and E. MICHEL, 
Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858- 
824), WO 1/4 [1949] 25-271, esp. 268-269 
no. 23). SCHROEDER concluded that "dAr- 
ma-da was presumably the principal god of 
the homonymous city and territory of Arvad” 
(1922:168); LEwy adopted the same conclu- 
sion (1934). Except for this one text, howe- 
ver, a deity Armada is never mentioned in 
the cuneiform sources. There is the distinct 
possibility that the reading is based on an 
error (of either the ancient scribe or the 
modern copyist). Even if there ever was a 
god Armada, we cannot be sure of the con- 
nection with the city of Arvad, as the topo- 
nym is spelled in quite different ways; the 
writing A-ru-ad-da for instance is far more 
frequent (PARPOLA, AOAT 6, 37). 

III. In the few instances in which Arvad 
is mentioned in the Bible, there is no hint of 
a divine nature of the city or a god by that 
name. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. Lewy, Les textes paléo-assyriens et 
l'Ancien Testament, RHR 110 (1934) 49; O. 
SCHROEDER, Zur Rezipierung des dAr-ma-da 
unter Salmanassar IlI., ZA 34 (1922) 168- 
169; E. UNGER, Arwad, RLA 1 (1932) 160- 
161. 


K. VAN DER TOORN 


ASHAM CON 

I. The divine name itm is attested as the 
second clement of the divine binomial Sgr w 
itm in the sacrificial list recorded on RS 
24.643 verso (KTU 1.148:31) and has been 
interpreted as related to the Hebrew word 
’aSam, ‘guilt’ and ‘guilt-offering’ (AsToUR 
1966:281-282). 

II. A new syllabically written ‘pantheon’ 
text from Ras Shamra now lays to rest the 
identification of itm with Hebrew 'ásám. In 
1992.2004:14 (reading and interpretation 


98 


courtesy D. Arnaud) the entry corresponding 
to Sgr w itm is Shar à dgirs, indicating that 
itm is the Ugaritic equivalent of the Mesop- 
otamian deity [Sum (on this deity see 
Epzarp 1965; RoBerts 1972; cf. Fire). 

The identification of Shaggar with a 
-moon deity is explicit in Hieroglyphic 
Hittite correspondences to syllabically 
written personal names (430 = sd-gatra/i; 
E. LAROCHE, Akkadica 22 [1981] 11; H. 
GONNET, apud D. ARNAUD, Textes syriens 
de l'áge du Bronze Récent [AulOr Suppl 1; 
Barcelona 1991] 199, 207), while in an 
Emar ritual the fifteenth day of the month is 
ascribed to Shaggar (D. ARNAUD, Annuaire 
de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 
Section des Sciences Religieuses 92 [1983- 
84] 234; idem, Emar VI/3 [1986] 350-66, 
text 373 = Msk 74292a + 74290d + 74304a 
+ 74290c). It appears thus that this deity not 
only had a connection with small cattle (cf. 
Coorer 1981:415-416; cf. —>Sheger) but 
also with the moon, and the pair Sgr w itm 
thereby shows a certain similarity to the ad 
hoc pair yrh w rip (KTU 1.107:15 z line 40’ 
in the re-edition of PARDEE 1988). Given 
the fact that Yarihu is the primary lunar 
deity at Ugarit and Rashap the primary 
underworld deity (-*Resheph), Shaggar and 
Yarihu would bear a functional resemblance 
to each other (Shaggar being perhaps the 
deity of the full moon), while "Itum would 
be related to Rashap as I$um is related to 
—Nergal in Mesopotamian religion (cf. 
EDZARD 1965; RoBERTS 1972). 

Finally, the connection between the cer- 
tain divine name itm and the form itmh in 
KTU 1.108:14 cannot be elucidated because 
itmh occurs in a badly broken context (cf. 
PARDEE 1988 chap. II). 

III. In the absence of a Ugaritic example, 
there is no evidence for the existence of a 
Semitic or biblical deity whose name is 
based on the root denoting 'guilt'. ASTOUR's 
tentative identification (1966) must therefore 
be rejected (see also CoorER 1981:344-345; 
WaNsBROUGH 1987). 

IV. Bibliography 
M. C. Asroun, Some New Divine Names 
from Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284; A. 


ASHERAH 


Cooper, Divine Names and Epithets in the 
Ugaritic Texts, RSP III (1981) 333-469; D. 
O. Epzarp, WbMyih 1 (1965) 90-91; D. 
PARDEE, Les textes para-mythologiques de 
la 24e campagne (1961) (RSO IV; Paris 
1988) 227-256; PARDEE, Les textes rituels 
(RSO; Paris, f.c.) chap. 66; J. J. M. 
Roperts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A 
Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in 
Mesopotamia before Ur IIl [Baltimore 1972] 
40-41; J. WANSBROUGH, Antonomasia: the 
Case for Semitic ’7M, Figurative Language 
in the Ancient Near East (eds. M. Mindlin, 
etal.; London 1987) 103-116. 


D. PARDEE 


ASHERAH 728 

I. The Hebrew term "'ásérá, "áierá, 
seems to be used in two senses in the Bible, 
as a cultic object (asherah) and as a divine 
name (Asherah). 

It is the presence of possibly cognate 
words in other Semitic languages, where 
goddesses are frequently understood to be 
denoted, that has raised interesting questions 
for the interpretation of the OT references, 
and the linguistic problems are now com- 
pounded by the inscriptions of Khirbet cl 
Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud. The etymological 
possibilities are considerable. Thus South 
Arabic afr means 'shining'; Hebrew "aser 
means ‘happy’ (cf. the tribal name Asher, 
which may be a divine name in origin), or 
‘upright’ (which is consonant with the prob- 
able pole-structure of the cultic object, the 
asherah); Hebrew "àsar, Ugaritic "atr, may 
mean ‘to advance, walk’ (exploited in expla- 
nations of the goddess as ‘walker’, or 
‘trampler’, but denied in this sense by 
MARGALIT 1990:268); the common noun atr 
(air) meaning '(sacred) place’ is most 
widely attested in the Semitic languages 
(ALBRIGHT, AJSL 41 [1925] 99-100: Day 
1986:388), and perhaps offers the least 
difficulties, as being able to stand on its 
own, and may represent the original sense, 
though MARGALIT’s suggestion (1990, pas- 
sim), of a wife ‘following’ her husband 
(Ugaritic atr = ‘after’), and therefore as a 


99 


denominative, ‘wife’, ‘consort’, is attractive. 
A new proposal by WATSON (1993) is sug- 
gested by the title ‘Mistress of fates’ (be-le- 
e[t] $i-ma-tim) which occurs in a hymn to 
-Amurru in parallel with das-ra-t[um Si?]- 
ma-tim. On the basis of this he suggests that 
atrt ym may be construed as ‘She who or- 
ganises the day’. In any event a West Se- 
mitic origin for the goddess is most likely 
(Dav 1986:386; WicGiNs 1993:278)—even 
though the earliest evidence is in Akkad- 
ian—so that a West Semitic etymology 
should be sought. We may be sure that all 
possible wordplays were entertained by the 
ancients, however, in exploring her theol- 
ogy, so that ruling an etymology out of 
account on philological grounds does not 
rule out possible mythological and theologi- 
cal developments, or cult-titles as suggested 
above. This ‘symbolic extension’ of divine 
names is often not sufficiently recognised by 
scholars. 

H. Ugarit. Ugaritic literature provides 
our primary source concerning the goddess. 
The name is spelt atrt, usually vocalised as 
*Athirat(u)', or, following Hebrew conven- 
tion, ‘Asherah’. She appears in the follow- 
ing contexts. In the ‘Baal cycle’ of myths, 
KTU 1.1-6, she is a great goddess, mother of 
the minor gods of the panthcon, referred to 
as ‘the seventy sons of Athirat (Sb%n bn 
atrt, KTU 1.4 vi:46), who intercedes for 

*Baal and -*Anat before >El (KTU 1.4 iv), 
and who supplies a son to reign following 
the descent of Baal into the netherworld 
(KTU 1.6 i:45-55). In one obscure episode 
(cf. KTU 1.4 ii:1-11 with 4 iii:15-22) it is 
possible that she attempts to seduce Baal, or 
is thought by him to have done so (Horr- 
NER 1990:69). It may also be that Baal kills 
large numbers of her children (KTU 1.4 
11:23-26 with 1.6 v:1-4; HOFFNER 1990:69). 
She appears to be the consort of El (id, 
though this is nowhere stated. In the Keret 
story, KTU 1.14-16, the king, while travel- 
ling to claim his bride, makes a vow to 
"Athirat of the Tyrians, and the goddess of 
the Sidonians" (KTU 1.14:38-39), indicating 
that the poet regards her as a goddess of 
Tyre and -*Sidon (but cf. B. MancarrT, UF 


ASHERAH 


28 [1996] 453-455). When the vow is bro- 
ken, her vengeance entails the complete 
undoing of all El’s plans to redeem Keret. 
Further, the heir to Keret’s throne is descri- 
bed as one “who will drink the milk of Athi- 
rat, draining the breast of the Virgin [ ]" 
(KTU 1.15 ii:27 —the completion of the 
lacuna by — ‘Anat’ is gratuitous: WYATT, 
UF 15 [1983] 273-274 and n. 13). This has 
an important bearing on the goddess' ideolo- 
gical role, suggesting that kings are made 
quasi-divine by divine suckling. Apart from 
mention in sacrificial and pantheon lists, the 
goddess also appears in two theogonic texts, 
KTU 1.12 i and 1.23, the former describing 
the binh of ‘the Devourers’ to the hand- 
maids of Athirat and Yarihu, the latter 
describing two wives of El (seemingly Athi- 
rat and perhaps Shapsh) who consummate 
their marriage with him, and give birth to 
-—Shahar and -*Shalem, the —Dioskouroi. 
These texts have a bearing on several bibli- 
cal traditions, such as Gen 16, 19:30-38, Ps 
8 etc. (Wyatt 1993). The goddess’ name 
appears in the longer title rbr atrt ym, mean- 
ing perhaps ‘the Great Lady who walks on 
the Sea’ (the name therefore apparently 
understood as ‘Walker’), but this should not 
be understood to point to the true etymology 
(above), and is not falsified by an appeal to 
etymology, being perhaps an example of 
‘popular’ (rather ‘hieratic’) etymologising. 
Likewise, WATSON's proposal (1993) has at 
least this status, and would also be conso- 
nant with occasional hints that she has solar 
connections (such as the pairing with 
Shapsh in KTU 1.23). 

Under West Semitic evidence we should 
also note the personal name Abdi-ASirta, 
occurring in various transcriptions as a ruler 
of Amurru, Ugarit’s neighbour to the south, 
mentioned some 92 times in the Amarna let- 
ters (EA). In the hymn cited by WATSON 
(1993), Ashratum is the consort of the god 
Amurru. In addition, she appears in a letter 
from Taanach dating to the 15th century 
(ALBRIGHT, BASOR 94 [1944] 18, Taanach 
letter 1, 1. 21) and in one Aramaic inscrip- 
tion (KAI 228) as a goddess of Tema. This 
last is of interest in view of -*Yahweh’s 


possible associations with Tema (cf. Hab 
3:3 - LXX renders both téma’ and témdn of 
MT by Thaiman). The reading is however 
questioned by Cross (CBQ 48 [1986] 387- 
394) and Day (1992:485). 

Philistine. Excavations in Tel 
Miqne/Ekron have brought to light a few 
dedicatory inscriptions mentioning the god- 
dess ^irh. The inscriptions were engraved 
on jars whose contents probably were desti- 
ned for the cult of the deity or her symbol 
(DorHAN 1990; Grn 1990; Gmn 
1993:250; DOTHAN & GrTIN 1994). A royal 
dedicatory inscription from Ekron mentions 
in line 3 a goddess Prgyh, who as yet has 
not been identified. Her epithet "dh, ‘his 
lady’ (Adat), might indicate that she was 
identified with the local semitic deity Ashe- 
rah (Grrin, DoTHAN & NAVEH 1997, esp. 
11-12). 

Egypt. Athirat has been identified as 
‘Qudshu’ (‘the ->Holy One’) appearing in 
KTU 1.2 i:21 etc. (the phrase bn qd§ being 
misconstrued as ‘the sons of Qudshu"), and 
thus a link is made between her and the so- 
called Qudshu stelae from Thebes (so most 
recently Day 1986:388-389, 399). However, 
on the stelae the name reads qdst (feminine), 
and there is in any case no justification for 
identifying the goddess of the stelae with 
Athirat. Furthermore, the qdš of the Ugaritic 
texts should be construed as denoting El, or 
less probably as the abstract ‘holiness’. If 
this term referred to Athirat, it would re- 
quire a final ! to denote the feminine. Reiter- 
ation of elementary errors of this sort by 
subsequent generations of scholars only 
compounds the error! (Sec WicGGiNs 1991 
for a sober view on these matters; see also 
Holy One) 

Mesopotamia. The forms  Airaru(m), 
ASiratu, ASirtu (here ‘Ashratu’) appear in- 
frequently in Akkadian and Hittite docu- 
ments, and give only the sketchiest informa- 
tion concerning the goddess. The fact that 
she appears as the consort of Amuru 
(above) is evidence of Ashratu(m)’s Amor- 
ite (thus, West Semitic) origin. The earliest 
reference is in a votive inscription in Sumer- 
ian from Hammurabi's time (18th century), 


100 


ASHERAH 


BM 22454. In this her epithets include 
‘daughter-in-law of An’, ‘Lady of volup- 
tuousness and happiness’ and ‘Lady with 
patient mercy’. She also appears in a num- 
ber of god-lists, the list K. 3089 indicating 
that she had a temple in Babylon, and on a 
number of cylinder-seals and impressions. 
Ashratum also appears in one personal name 
from the time of Hammurabi: Ašratum- 
Ummi. Finally, she is mentioned in three 
ritual texts from the Seleucid period. The 
Sumcero-Akkadian evidence has been recent- 
ly summarised and evaluated by WiGGINS 
(1993:190-217). 

A Hittite text. contains the myth of 
Elkunirsha (-*El-creator-of-the-earth) and 
Ashertu, which appears to be derived by 
Hurrian mediation from a Canaanite proto- 
type. ElkurnirSa is generally accepted as a 
transcription of *il qny arş (cf. Gen 14:19), 
and ASertu as onc of atrt. This narrates how 
the goddess tries to seduce the storm-god 
(Tešub = Baal —>Hadad). When he repons 
this to Elkunirsha, he is told to humiliate the 
goddess. But he does this, both sexually, 
apparently (see HOFFNER’S translation: cf. 
ANET 519), and by telling her how he killed 
her children. She and Elkunirsha then plot 
against the storm-god, but Anat-Ashtart 
reveals their plotting to him. The storm-god 
is then apparently injured (through witch- 
craft?), but is subsequently exorcised. 
(HOFFNER 1990:69-70) 

Arabia. A goddess Athirat has been dis- 
cerned in the epigraphic South Arabian 
inscriptions, dating from the mid-first mil- 
lennium BCE. The term atrt occurs in 
various inscriptions in the dialects of the 
region, and can mean ‘sanctuary’, in addi- 
tion to being a divine name in some in- 
stances. Unfortunately, very little informa- 
tion can be gleaned for our purposes from 
the texts. RES 3534B and 3550 mention a 
temple of Wadd and Athirat, while RES 
3689 alludes to offerings to ‘Amm and 
Athirat. Wadd is the Qatabanian moon-god, 
and ‘Amm the national god, who may be 
lunar, and thus another name for Wadd. 
Whether or not Athirat is the consort of the 
god in cach case, and is therefore solar in 


South Arabia, cannot be decided on the 
basis of the evidence available. 

III. The term (Ad-’asérd, var. ’dsérd), 
appears some 40 times in MT, usually with 
the article. When the plural is used, the 
forms ’asérim and ’asérét both occur. A 
cultic object appears most commonly to be 
denoted, which can be ‘made’ ('$nu), 'cut 
down’ (KRT) and ‘burnt’ (Srp). Probably a 
stylised tree, or a lopped trunk, is in- 
tended—see Deut 16:21, which prohibits the 
‘planting’ of any tree (or: wood) as an 
asherah, and Judg 6:25-26, where it can 
become sacrificial fuel—and is frequently 
singled out for opprobrium by the Deutero- 
nomist. However, not only is the attitude of 
the biblical writers not entirely consistent, 
but neither is the usage, the article being 
absent, or not presupposed by suffixes, in 8 
cases. The term also appears in both singu- 
lar and plural, and in the latter can apparent- 
ly be masculine or feminine (the latter is 
however dubious—sec below). Furthermore, 
the matter of the reference of a given pas- 
sage, to cultic object or goddess, is indepen- 
dent of the use of the article. This is clear 
from the fact that in every instance where 
'Baal' is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, 
the article is used (allowed for in this in- 
stance by GK §126d, on the ground that it is 
specifying a generic term), as it is with a 
number of the 'Ashtoreth' (-^Astarte) rcf- 
erences. Since in both these cases there is no 
question of it not being a deity of some kind 
that is referred to, whether specific or gen- 
eric, it follows that the same rule may at 
least in principle apply in the case of ‘the 
asherah'. The presence or absence of the 
article is therefore not, in the present writer's 
view, a determinant in our analysis; what it 
probably does is to remove the proper name 
status of the noun, making it into a general 
term for a deity, though the use of the ar- 
ticle with ’éléhim in its designation of the 
god of Israel suggests that the mechanical 
application of grammatical rules may be 
premature (see above: GK §126d). The first 
problem with the biblical allusions is there- 
fore where a goddess is to be discerned 
behind the references and where the cult 


101 


ASHERAH 


object. It is general contextual consider- 
ations which are to be taken into account. 
Thus references to constructing, erecting, 
removing or burning the asherah are in prin- 
ciple to be understood as referring to the 
cult object. LXX apparently understood its 
arboreal nature by its commonest translation 
as alsos, ‘grove’. The Mishnah (‘Abodah 
Zarah 3:7) regards the Ashcerah as a tree. 
We shall consider below the relationship 
between object and deity. 

The most important single source is the 
Deuteronomistic History, which contains 24 
of the 40 references. One of its chief con- 
cems is cultic purity, a strictly monolatrous 
Yahwism, and it therefore regards the pres- 
ence of the asherah as evidence of apostasy. 
The Deuteronomistic historians have done 
their work so well that scholars are prone to 
talk of the asherah and other cultic elements 
as evidence of syncretism, or of (extraneous) 
‘Canaanite’ elements in the Israclite and 
Judahite cults. In view of the epigraphic evi- 
dence to be discussed below, it is safer to 
begin from the supposition that the religion 
of both kingdoms only gradually moved 
towards monolatry and then monotheism, 
through prophctic and Deuteronom(ist)ic 
influence, and was otherwise, at both popu- 
lar and official levels, basically polytheistic 
in nature, Furthermore, there is no justi- 
fication for ideas of 'foreignness' about the 
Canaanite elements in religion in Palestine. 
Israel and Judah are to be seen as wholly 
within that cultural tradition. Historically 
speaking, it is their emergence from it which 
is striking (though often overstated) rather 
than its inherently alien nature. If we set 
aside those passages which treat the asherah 
specifically as an object to which certain 
things could be done, we are left with the 
following passages which may reasonably 
be understood to denote the goddess. 

Judg 3:7 is a general statement on apos- 
tasy, and states that the Israelites served the 
Baals and the 'Asheroth'. This would be a 
generic use of the term, but should be cor- 
rected in accordance with Judg 2:13, where 
the goddess(es) are called Ashtaroth 
(‘Astdrét). 1 Kgs 15:13 (= 2 Chr 15:16) says 


that Maacah made an “obscene thing for 
(the) asherah" (miplesget là'áserá) and that 
Asa cut it (sc. the *obscene thing', not the 
asherah) down. The Kgs text has the article, 
the Chr text omits it. The principle of the 
article with divine names noted above 
applies, and there is no need to see a shift in 
understanding between the two versions. 
The Kgs passage undoubtedly has the god- 
dess in mind (and apparently has her left 
standing!), though the article reduces her 
name to a generality. | Kgs 18:19 mentions 
400 prophets of Asherah: the article is used, 
but the deity must be intended, unless the 
text be rejected as a gloss, as by some com- 
mentators. LXX repeats the phrase at v 22, 
and there is no objective reason for omitting 
it here. In the accompanying reference to the 
450 prophets of Baal, the article is of course 
used, so both divine names must, on reten- 
tion of the text, be interpreted consistently. 2 
Kgs 13:6 appears to be an attempt to incor- 
porate the asherah among the sins of Jero- 
boam (though this is originally singular, as 
in | Kgs 16:19, and refers to the calf-images 
of | Kgs 12:28-29). REB translates h@’ăšērâ 
here as the divine name, but the sacred pole 
is probably intended. 2 Kgs 21:7 states that 
Manasseh ‘set up an image of the asherah’, 
which again appears to refer to the goddess 
(so REB). But the verse should perhaps be 
harmonised with v 3, which simply alludes 
to the sacred pole. Finally within the 
Deuteronomistic History, 2 Kgs 23:4-7, in 
the account of Josiah's reform, v 4 refers to 
items made labba‘al wéla’dsérd, ‘for (the) 
Baal and for (the) Asherah’, while v 7 
speaks of the ‘clothes’ (bottim: perhaps 
‘shrines’?, WiGGINS 1993:165) the women 
wove for the asherah. The first of these 
verses can only refer to the goddess, while 
the second is ambiguous, since it may be a 
matter of hangings for the sacred pole. 
Among the other 16 references to the 
asherah, 15 are in the plural, and thus clear- 
ly do not denote the goddess. They range 
from Exod 34:13 (thoroughly Deutero- 
nomistic in style), through 11 references in 
2 Chr (of which only 15:16 [1 Kgs 15:13] is 
singular), most of which parallel the same 


102 


ASHERAH 





data in Kgs, two references in Isaiah (17:8 
and 27:9) and one each in Jeremiah (17:2) 
and Micah (5:13). The paucity of prophetic 
references is striking, and raises the possibil- 
ity that the violent objection to goddess and 
cult object belongs to one particular theol- 
ogical school (viz. the Deuteronomistic) in 
Judah. Above all, the absence of any ref- 
erence in Hosea is cause for surprise. 
(WELLHAUSEN's proposal for 14:9 [Die 
kleine Propheten (Berlin 18983) 20] remains 
conjectural.) The few prophetic allusions 
noted are all best explained as later addi- 
tions to the text. All the plural forms are in 
the masculine, with the exception of 2 Chr 
33:3, which has the feminine plural. Since 
the parallel in 2 Kgs 21:3 has the singular, 
there is a case for emendation here. All the 
plural occurrences in the Deuteronomistic 
History are also masculine, and since we 
have already discounted Judg 3:7, it means 
that the only genuine plural form is mascu- 
line. (There may be a case for a further 
instance of the masculine plural use: 1 Sam 
7:3 has in MT weéhá'astárót, but LXX reads 
. .kai ta alse, presupposing há'dsérím. 

Why is the masculine form used in the 
plural usage? WiGGiNS (1993:169-170, 186) 
suggests that in the Deuteronomistic History 
the usage is in accordance with the double 
redaction principle: the feminine singular 
references are by and large preexilic. the 
masculine plural ones exilic. This then be- 
comes normative, among later editors and 
writers who may have only the vaguest idea, 
if any, what the singular term actually 
denoted. The plural term is a code-word for 
something cultically deviant. 

The usage of "dséerà, in the singular 
denoting the goddess or the cult object, and 
in the plural meaning the latter, and 
developing the vaguer sense just noted, is an 
excellent basis for discussion of the whole 
Israelite and Judahite attitude to image- 
worship (‘idolatry” is a pejorative term). The 
first principle in the understanding of this is 
the deliberate perversity of the biblical view 
(e.g. at Isa 17:8; 44:9-20; Jer 2:27-28) which 
recognises the inherently ‘incarnational* 
thought of image-worship, that man-made 


objects can, through cultic use, become the 
media for hierophanies, and yet tums this 
argument in on itself as a parody of true 
religion. The real significance of Isa 17:8, 
with its reference to ‘the work of his hands, 
and what his fingers have made’, is however 
to be determined by Isa 2:8, where the 
identical formula, with singular suffixes in a 
context of plural verbs, can only indicate 
that it is Yahweh's hands and fingers that 
have made the objects. And this is no simple 
statement of creaturcliness, but a metaphor 
of theogony. The asherah is indeed the work 
of Yahweh's hands and fingers, but in a 
mythological sense (sce WvATT 1994). The 
Isaianic reference to the asherah is thus fully 
aware of the dangerous power of the god- 
dess. Her reality is not in question, and the 
distinction between deity and cult object is 
ultimately not an ancient, but a modern onc. 

This brings us to the intriguing question 
of the supposed 'Yahweh's Asherah', turn- 
ing up as the only extra-biblical evidence for 
the goddess, if to be so construed, in two 
sites, Khirbet el Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud. 
On walls at the former, and on pithoi at the 
latter, inscriptions have been found, giving 
rise to a lively debate. For a thorough sur- 
vey see HADLEY (1989). Space precludes 
lengthy discussion here. The inscriptions 
refer to yiwh wSrth, yhwh Smrn w°Srth and 
yhwh tmn w'srth, “Yahweh (Yahweh of 
Samaria, Yahweh of Teman [probably = K. 
Ajrud]) and his ’dSéra™. In all cases the 
deity and his "ásérá are invoked for blessing 
and protection. The status of the *dSérd is 
problematic. It cannot be the divine name 
according to the grammatical rule which 
precludes a proper noun taking a suffix; but 
we have scen that the use of the article in 
MT is not determinative in the debate. If it 
is the cult object, it may nevertheless have 
been viewed as noted above, that is with no 
practical distinction drawn between object 
and the deity symbolised. Some kind of 
divine reference is supported by two icono- 
graphical features found in context. Inscrip- 
tion 3 at Khirbet el Qom is written above an 
engraved hand. This has a widely attested 
apotropaic significance (SCHROER 1983), but 


103 


ASHERAH 


may also be tentatively linked with the hand 
symbo! of Tanit of Carthage, the prototype 
of which appeared on a stela at Hazor. A 
link between Tanit and Asherah is possible, 
though unproven (see discussion in HvID- 
BERG-HANSON 1979:115-119). One of the 
K. Ajrud pithoi has three figures drawn 
below the inscription. To the right a seated 
figure plays a stringed instrument. To the 
left two figures are flanked by a diminutive 
bull. Attempts to identify these figures with 
Bes are quite unwarranted. MARGALIT's 
explanation of them as "Yahweh and his 
consort" (1990:277, see above etymology) is 
cogent, and consistent with details of the 
drawings. But perhaps judgment should be 
reserved. 

The conclusion many scholars have 
drawn that Asherah was the consort of 
Yahweh may be approached from another 
angle. If Yahweh developed out of local 
Palestinian forms of El, then we might 
expect a simple continuity of the old EI- 
Asherah (Ilu-Athirat) relationship which 
appears to obtain at Ugarit. But it has been 
increasingly argued in recent years that 
Yahweh has ‘baalistic’ characteristics, or is 
even a form of Baal himself. It has been 
argued that Baal effectively usurps El’s role 
at Ugarit, and takes El’s consort at the same 
time. There is no evidence from Ugarit to 
support this, and the hypothesis is based on 
a reading back of the Hurro-Hittite Elkunirsha 
myth to its putative Canaanite prototype 
(which need not have been the pattern at 
Ugarit). Within the biblical context, it has 
been supposed that Yahweh-Baal is thus the 
consort of Asherah, since Baal and Asherah 
were the local ‘Canaanite’ deities evidenced 
at Judg 3:7 MT. But we have seen that 
MT's reading here is to be rejected. The 
hypothesis has nothing to commend it. 

The theology of the goddess remains 
obscure in spite of the complex evidence 
noted above. We cannot be certain that 
every Ugaritic trait was preserved in the 
later environment, and even there much 
remains unknown. The firmest evidence, i.e. 
that cited from the Keret story above, and 
the goddess’ role in choosing Athtar as king 


in the Baal cycle, points to her role in king- 
ship rituals, as ‘incarnate’ in the chief 
queen, who in Ugarit appears to have borne 
the ttle rabitu, ‘Great Lady’, (GORDON 
1988) which is used of Asherah herself as 
well as of Shapsh, and which would corre- 
spond to the office of gébírá, also something 
like ‘Great Lady’ in Israelite and Judahite 
royal ideology. Maacah, a gébird, is noted 
for her particular devotion to Asherah in 1 
Kgs 15:13, and Bathsheba is undoubtedly to 
be scen fulfilling the role in 1 Kgs 2:13-19 
(Wyatt, ST 39 [1985] 46; UF 19 [1987] 
399-404). AHLSTROM very appositely calls 
the Judahite queen “the ideological replica 
of the mother of the gods...” (1976:76; cf. 
ACKERMANN 1993). It is this inseparable tie 
with the royal cultus which may explain the 
goddess’ apparently complete disappearance 
from the post-exilic world, though echoes of 
her are discernible in the figure of —Wis- 
dom (LANG 1986:60-81). 
IV. Bibliography 

S. ACKERMAN, The Queen Mother and the 
Cult in Ancient Israel, JBL 112 (1993) 385- 
401; G. W. AHLSTRÓM, Aspects of Syn- 
cretism in Israelite Religion (Horae Soeder- 
blomianac V; Lund 1963;  K-H. 
BERNHARDT, Aschera in Ugarit und im 
Alten Testament, M/O 13 (1967) 163-174; 
T. BINGER, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, 
Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup 
212; Sheffield 1994); J. Day, Asherah in the 
Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Litera- 
ture, JBL 105 (1986) 385-408; Day, Ashe- 
rah, ABD I (1992) 483-487; M. DIETRICH & 
O. Loretz, Yahwe und seine Aschera (UBL 
9; Münster 1992); T. DOTHAN, Ekron of the 
Philistines. Part I: Where They Came From, 
How They Settled Down and the Place They 
Worshipped In, BAR 16/1 (1990) 26-35: T. 
DorHAN & S. Grriw, Tel Miqne/Ekron: The 
Rise and Fall of a Philistine City, Qadmoni- 
oth 105-106 (1994) 2-28; S. Gmn, Cultic 
Inscriptions Found in Ekron, BA 53 (1990) 
232; GrriN, Seventh Century BCE Cultic 
Elements at Ekron, Biblical Archaeology 
Today 1990 (Jerusalem 1993) 248-258; S. 
GrriN, T. DoTHAN & J. Naven, A Royal 
Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron, /EJ 47 


104 


ASHHUR — 


(1997) 1-16: C. H. GoRDON. Ugaritic 
rbt/rabitu, Ascribe to the Lord (ed. F. S. 
Craigie, JSOTSup 67; Sheffield 1988) 127- 
132; J. M. HADLEY, Yahweh's Asherah in 
the Light of Recent Discoveries (diss. 
Oxford 1989); HADLEY, Yahweh and “His 
Asherah": Archaeological and Textual Evi- 
dence for the Cult of the Goddess, Ein Gott 
Allein (eds. W. Dietrich & M. A. Klopfen- 
stein; Fribourg/Góttingen 1994) 235-268; H. 
A. HorrNER, Hittite Myths (Atlanta 1990) 
69-70; F. O. HvipBERG-HANSON, La déesse 
TNT (Copenhagen 1979) i 71-81, 115-119, ii 
69-100; A. JAMME, Le panthéon sud-arabe 
préislamique d'aprés les sources ¢pigraphi- 
ques, Afus 60 (1947) 57-147; O. KEEL & C. 
UEHLINGER, Góttinnen, Gótter und Gottes- 
symbole (Freiburg 1992) 199-321; R. KLET- 
TER, Judaean Pillar-Figurines and the 
Archaeology of Asherah (BAR Intemational 
Series 636; Oxford 1996); B. LANG, Wisdom 
and the Book of Proverbs (New York 1986) 
60-81; E. LipiNsx1, The goddess Atirat in 
ancient Arabia, in Babylon and in Ugarit, 
OLP 3 (1972) 101-119; W. A. Mater, 
*ASerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37; 
Atlanta 1986); B. MARGALIT, The meaning 
and significance of Asherah, VT 40 (1990) 
264-297; S. M. OrvaN, Asherah and the 
cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlan- 
ta 1988); R. Patat, The goddess Asherah, 
JNES 24 (1965) 37-52; R. J. PETTEY, 
Asherah, Goddess of Israel (AUS VII 74; 
New York 1990); M. H. Pope, Atirat, 
Worterbuch der Mythologie i (ed. H. W. 
Haussig; Stuttgart 1965) 246-249; J. B. 
PRITCHARD, Palestinian Figurines in Rela- 
tion to Certain Goddesses Known Through 
Literature (AOS 24; New Haven 1943) 59- 
65, 89-90; W. L. REED, The Asherah in the 
Old Testament (Fort Worth 1949); S. 
SCHROER, Zur Deutung der Hand unter der 
Grabinschrift von Chirbet el Qôm, UF 15 
(1983) 191-199; M. S. SmitH, The Early 
History of God (San Francisco 1990); W. G. 
E. WATSON, Atrt ym: Yet Another Proposal, 
UF 25 (1993) 431-434; S. WiGGiNs, The 
Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent 
Goddess, UF 23 (1991) 384-394; WiGGINS, 
A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’. A Study 


ASHIMA 


According to the Textual Sources of the 
First Two Millennia B.C.E. (AOAT 235; 
Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993), N. 
Wyatt, The Theogony Motif in Ugarit and 
the Bible, Ugarit and the Bible (UBL 11; 
eds. G. J. Brooke er al; Münster 1994) 395- 
419. 


N. Wyatt 


ASHHUR - ISHHARA 


ASHIMA NOUS 

I. Ashima was the god worshipped by 
the people of Hamath, who after their depor- 
tation to Samaria by the Assyrian king, con- 
tinued to serve him in their new home (2 
Kgs 17:30). 

Il. The name of the god, in its Biblical 
form, has been recovered only from the con- 
text of Arab tribes at Teima; in a dedicatory 
inscription from Teima, ^3iym? is invoked, 
along with the gods sim and šngľ (Sec 
LIVINGSTONE 1983; BEYER & LIVINGSTONE 
1987). This attestation is somewhat surpris- 
ing if the primary association of Ashima is 
with the north Syrian Hamath (but cf. 
BECKING 1992:99, 102-104); trade contacts 
between the caravanning Arabs and the 
important centre of Hamath may explain the 
adoption of Ashima into the pantheon at 
Teima. 

Prior to the discovery of the Teima 
inscription, Ashima was sought within the 
Canaanite/Phoenician cultural sphere, and 
was taken to be related to the god -*Esh- 
mun. But the name of this deity, attested in 
Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, as well 
as cuneiform texts, is always written with 
the final consonant nun, and so the identifi- 
cation with Ashima is questionable. See 
further s.v. Eshmun. 

Some have claimed to have found the 
name Ashima at Elephantine in the com- 
pound divine name Eshem-Bethel (PORTEN 
& YARDENI 1993:234, 127) and as a theo- 
phoric element in over a half-dozen Aramaic 
personal names (GRELOT, LAPO 5 (1972) 
464). The god's name may also be seen in a 
Greek transcription from Kafr Nebo, in the 


105 


ASHTORETH — ASMODEUS 


compound form Sumbetulos, i.c. Eshem- 
Bethel (LipzBarski, ESE 2. 1908, 323-324). 
Therefore, a North Syrian Aramacan locale 
as the home of the deity seems assured. The 
name Eshem may be the Aramaic form of 
the common Semitic noun for “name”, and, 
according to ALBRIGHT (1969:168), its use 
is evidence for hypostatization, “the ten- 
dency to avoid the personal name of the 
deity and to replace it with more discrete 
expressions.” 

III. Many commentators find the name 
of the god Ashima in the threatening words 
of Amos 8:14 against those "who swear by 
the guilt (asmat) of Samaria". While it is 
not impossible that this is an example of a 
prophetic play on words, "a3mat z ?Asimà? 
(cf. Hosea 4:15, where the name Beth-aven 
“House of transgression” rather than Beth- 
el, alludes to the sin of idolatry at the site, 
cf. 13:1), the primary issue raised by Amos 
“is not an apostate invocation of some 
foreign deity ..., but rather the emphatic 
insistence on the deity’s localization at a 
particular sanctuary ...Yahweh (had been) 
fragmented into several gods, conceived of 
as patron deities of territorial regions" 
(WoLFF 1975:332; contrast VAN DER 
TooRN 1992:91). 

IV. Bibliography 
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the Re- 
ligion of Israel (Sth ed.; Garden City 1969); 
B. BECKING, The Fall of Samaria: an His- 
torical and Archaeological Study (Leiden 
1992); K. BEYER & A. LIVINGSTONE, Die 
neuesten aramiischen Inschriften aus Taima, 
ZDMG 137 (1987) 285-296 esp. 286-288; 
A. LIVINGSTONE, B. Spale, M. IBranm, M. 
KAMEL & S. Tamani, Taima: Recent 
Sounding and New Inscribed Material, Atlal 
7 (Riyadh 1983), 102-116 + pls. 87-97 (esp. 
108-111, pl. 96); B. PORTEN & A. YARDENI, 
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from 
Ancient Egypt 3: Literature, Accounts, Lists 
(Jerusalem 1993); K. VAN DER TOORN, 
Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the 
Jews of Elephantine, Numen 39 (1992), 80- 
101: H. W. WorLrr, Joel and Amos 
(Hermencia; Philadelphia 1975). 


M. COGAN 


ASHTORETH - ASTARTE 


ASMODEUS ‘Aopogaios 

I. The etymology of the name Asmo- 
deus is not beyond any doubt but it is most 
plausibly derived from the Avestan words 
aésma- and daéuua or their Middle Persian 
(Pahlavi) compound cognate xém-déw, both 
meaning ‘demon of wrath’. As Talmudic 
texts sometimes give the form “RUQTN or 
UTDUN for Asmodeus, his name has been 
connected with Hebrew "OO (to destroy, 
exterminate), but this seems to be folk ety- 
mology. Asmodeus does not occur as a 
demonic name in the Hebrew Bible, but the 
apocrypha twice give the Greek ‘Aopodatos 
(Tob 3:8.17). 

Il. The earliest occurrences of the 
Avestan demon ačšma- are the Gathic texts 
Yasna 29:2 and 30:6; those who choose the 
way of evil go the way of Aéshma and thus 
bring harm to the world, while otherwise the 
followers of Ahura Mazda’s teachings be- 
come expellers of him (Yasna 48:12). With 
the help of Aéshma the evil powers of 
Zarathustra's dualistic cosmos can bring 
sickness and evil to mankind so that men 
behave like Angra Mainyu's creatures. It is 
also worth mentioning that Aéshma is the 
only demon who occurs in the Gathas. Out- 
side the Old-Avestan corpus we find 
Aéshma in Yasna 57:10.25 (cf. Yasht 
11:15), a hymn to Shraosha, who will smite 
and crush Aéshma and protect people from 
his deceptions. Yasht 10:97 tells us about 
Aéshma’s fright of Mithra’s mace which is 
the most victorious of all weapons (cf. 
—Mithras). As his standard epithet we find 
“of bloody club”, so we can imagine him 
pictured as a savage ruffian. Of further inter- 
est is also Yasna 10:8 where we read that 
Aéshma brings drunkenness to men. The 
further development of Zoroastrianism 
brings a revival of the older Iranian gods 
and also the growth of the number of 
demons. Thus Aéshma occurs as a separate 
demonic being in the Pahlavi scriptures: 
Aéshma (xésm-déw) has now become one of 
the chief evil powers. He is equal to 
Ahreman and is the companion of Az; the 


106 


ASMODEUS 


deities of Ohrmazd's (Ahura Mazda's) good 
creation are his antagonists, mostly Wahman 
and Shrosh. According to the Bundahishn 
(1:3), he is one of the seven déws who were 
created by Ahreman; the Pahlavi Rivayat 
(56:13-15) gives the account of a conver- 
sation between Aéshma and Ahreman in 
which the former is enjoined to corrupt the 
good and efficient things of the creation. 
Aéshma is now the embodiment of -*Wrath 
who in legends can bring all kind of (puta- 
tively) historical disturbance and uproar into 
the world. Thus Aéshma and the usurper 
Dahaka fight king Yima and kill him. In the 
Zadspram (9:1), Aéshma is one of the 
ancestors of five brothers who are the en- 
emies of Zarathustra himself, while an 
account in the Dénkard (Book &) states that 
he incites Arjasp to wage war against 
ViStaspa, the protector of Zarathustra, and 
thus oppose the Iranian prophet. 

These texts lead to the following con- 
clusion: Aéshma (the personfied Wrath) has 
a separate existence and he is one of the 
powers of the evil sphere within Zoroastrian 
dualism. There he plays an important part in 
the struggle between good and evil and thus 
has a considerable influence upon history. In 
view of the spread of Zoroastrianism in the 
last centuries BCE from the lranian areas to 
Mesopotamia and Anatolia it is possible to 
find traces of his influence in both Jewish 
and Christian literature. 

II. The apocryphal book of Tobit prob- 
ably shows some Iranian (Zoroastrian) 
influence (cf. BOYCE & GRENET 1991:414), 
namely the importance of generously 
dispensing alms (Tob 4:9-10; 14:2), the 
account of the little dog (Tob 6:1; 11:4) and 
the mentioning of the demon Asmodeus. In 
Tob 3:8 we read that in his jealousy he has 
already killed the seven successive husbands 
of Sara during their wedding-nights. There- 
fore ->Raphacl was sent to free Sara from 
this demon (Tob 3:17). The angel can tell 
Tobias a way to expel him by performing a 
purifying (?) ritual and banishing him to the 
Egyptian desert (Tob 6:8; 8:1-3). On the 
whole, Asmodeus does not figure promi- 
nently in the book of Tobit; but, once intro- 


duced into Jewish literature, he made his 
way into folklore. He is depicted as a mal- 
efactor bringing discord to husband and wife 
or hiding a wife's beauty from her husband 
(T. Sol. 2:3). Aggadic texts also say that 
Asmodeus is connected with drunkenness, 
mischief and licentiousness. In the Talmud 
there is a famous account (Git. 68a-b; cf. 
Num. R. 11:3) of Solomon's dealing with 
this demon: Asmodcus, the king of demons, 
was made drunk and led to King Solomon 
whom he has to help build the temple in 
Jerusalem. Then, howcver, the demon took 
the king's seal and seated himself on the 
royal throne so that Solomon must wander 
around as a beggar until God shows mercy 
on him and restores his kingship. The whole 
legend does not depict Asmodeus as an evil- 
doer: his actions should open the King's eyes 
to the emptiness and vanity of wordly pos- 
sessions. Such legends gave rise to the pop- 
ular belief of Asmodeus as a beneficent 
demon and a friend of men—though he still 
remained king of the demons. 

Another tradition remains closer to the 
malificent Asmodeus of the book of Tobit 
and to the Iranian concept of Aéshma as a 
demon of wrath. The Qumranic and Pauline 
scriptures (cf. BOYCE & GRENET 1991:446; 
PINES 1982:81) know a conception of Wrath 
as a nearly autonomous entity; so it is poss- 
ible to see in that also the iranian concep- 
tion of aésma daéuua, though there is no 
linguistic link. But we also have to take into 
account that this Qumranic and Pauline con- 
cept has one root in the OT’s references of 
->Yahweh’s wrath and is thus part of the 
divine sphere. This difference should not be 
ignored because Aéshma is the main auxili- 
ary of the Iranian evil sphere. But neverthe- 
less it cannot be ruled out that the apocry- 
phal demon Asmodcus stemming from Iran 
is the other root of the hypostatized wrath as 
a destructive entity and for the creatures of 
wrath. 

IV. Bibliography 
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism. 
Vol. | (Leiden 1975) 87.201; M. Boyce & 
F. GRENET, A History of Zoroastrianism. 
Vol. 3 (Leiden 1991) 41, 425-426, 446: P. 


107 


ASSUR 





DESELAERS, Das Buch Tobit. Studien zu sei- 
ner Entstehung, Komposition und Theologie 
(OBO 43; Fribourg 1982) 87.98.147-148; S. 
PiNES, Wrath and Creatures of Wrath in 
Pahlavi, Jewish and New Testament Sources, 
lrano-Judaica. Studies Relating to Jewish 
Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout 
the Ages (ed. S. Shaked; Jerusalem 1982) 
76-82; S. SHAKED, The Zoroastrian Demon 
of Wrath, Tradition und Translation, Fest- 
schrift fiir Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburt- 
Stag (ed. C. Eslas er al.; Berlin 1994) 285- 
29]. 


M. HUTTER 


ASSUR "ZW /^2N 

I. Assur occurs in the OT as a person, 
the second son of -*Shem in the table of 
nations (Gen 10:22), as a people or world 
power, and as the land of Assyria. While the 
concept of the power may have been some- 
times subsumed in the concept of the deity, 
the only certain attestation of the name of 
the deity can be found within the name of 
the king Esarhaddon (Isa 37:38 = 2 Kgs 
19:37, Ezra 4:2). 

IL. Assur is the god of Assyria par 
excellence. His name is identical with that 
of the city of Assur, which with its temple, 
the bit ASSur, later Ekur, was the main 
centre of his cult. The significance of the 
god in Assyrian royal ideology can be seen 
clearly in prayers associated with the coron- 
ation of the Assyrian king. It is worth quot- 
ing from these texts, because they epitomize 
from an Assyrian point of view the character 
of the national god, which is seen from the 
opposite point of view in the OT. A Middle 
Assyrian prayer belonging to the ritual 
includes the following lines: “Assur is king, 
Assur is king!” and, further on in the text, 
“May your (the king’s) foot in Ekur and 
your hands (stretched) toward Assur, your 
god, be at ease! May your priesthood 
(šangūtu) and the priesthood of your sons be 
at ease in the service of Assur, your god! 
With your straight sceptre enlarge your 
land! May Assur grant you a commanding 
voice, obedience, agreement, justice and 
peace!” (MVAAG 41 [1937] 9-13). Similar 


sentiments can be found in the Neo-Assyr- 
ian coronation hymn of Assurbanipal: 
“Assur is king—indeed Assur is king! 
Assurbanipal is the [...] of Assur, the cre- 
ation of his hands. May the great gods es- 
tablish his reign. may thcy protect the life 
[of Assurba]nipal, king of Assyria! May 
they give him a just sceptre to extend the 
land and his peoples! May his reign be re- 
newed and may they consolidate his royal 
throne for ever!" (SAA 3 no. 11). 

The coincidence of the name Assur as 
city and also as god appears from Old 
Assyrian documents from the trading col- 
onies in Cappadocia to have been felt by 
ancient scribes: there is occasionally a lack 
of distinction between the two. Additionally, 
the term àdlum, ‘the city’, is used in oaths 
along with the ruler in contexts where one 
would anticipate mention of the city god and 
the ruler. As noticed by LaMBERT (1983), 
the evidence shows that the god Assur is the 
deified city. While parallels from the orig- 
inal heartland of Mesopotamian civilization 
are rare, the deification or numinous charac- 
ter of geographical features is quite com- 
monly attested in Northern Mesopotamia, 
especially in personal names. Analysis of 
the combined evidence led LAMBERT (1983) 
to the hypothesis that the site of the town 
Assur, which is an impressive natural hill, 
was a holy spot in prehistoric times. Having 
bcen settled as a place of strategic signifi- 
cance, its ‘holiness’ was exploited both 
practically—the growth of the town—and 
ideologically, leading to the dual character 
of city and god. 

In the course of the history of Assyria, 
the god Assur, who was not originally a 
deus persona and thus did not originally 
have a family, was made to conform to the 
theology of southern Mesopotamia. Begin- 
ning in the second millennium Assur was 
given a theological personality by regarding 
him as the Assyrian Enlil, Enlil being the 
god of Nippur and one of the most import- 
ant figures in the pantheon of Babylonia. 
This opened the way for the gradual adop- 
tion by Assur of everything originally 
pertaining to Enlil, from his wife Ninlil 
becoming the Assyrian -—Mullisu, and later 


108 


ASTARTE 


his sons Ninurta and Zababa, through 
various epithets down to items of furniture. 
This process of assimilation began in the 
time of Tukulti-Ninurta I (thirteenth century 
BCE) and continued into the Sargonid period 
(cighth to seventh centuries BCE). The only 
'family member' of Assur's, not certainly of 
southern origin, is Serü?a, and her exact 
standing is ambiguous. 

In the Sargonid period it became a com- 
mon scribal practice in Assyria to write the 
name of the god Assur with the signs 
AN.SÁR, originally used to designate a pri- 
meval deity in Babylonian theogonies. It 
seems that an ideological coup lies behind 
this innovation. In one Babylonian theo- 
gonic system, AnSar and KiSar—literally 
‘whole heaven’ and ‘whole earth’—precede 
the senior Babylonian gods Enlil and Ninlil, 
separated from them by Enurulla and Ninu- 
rulla (*Lord' and ‘Lady’ of the ‘primeval 
city’). By this means the Assyrian Assur, 
who did not figure in the Babylonian pan- 
theon at all, was made to appear at the head 
of it. This is explicitly stated in a learned 
Assyrian explanatory work: “It is said in 
Entima elif: When heaven and earth were 
not yet created, Assur (AN.SÁR) came into 
being" (SAA 3 no. 34:54). 

After his sack of Babylon in 689 BcE, 
Sennacherib attempted to institute a number 
of religious reforms. These included an 
endeavour to replace the cult of -Marduk in 
Babylon by an analogous cult in Assyria 
with Assur playing the part of Marduk. It 
appears that, while Assyrian outposts out- 
side Assyria would automatically represent 
areas where Assur was worshipped, worship 
of Assur replacing local cults was not re- 
quired of conquered peoples. Rather, the 
opposite was the case in the sense that 
Assyrians ostensibly respected local deities, 
using them for propaganda purposes by 
declaring that they had abandoned their 
worshippers as the Assyrians victoriously 
advanced. In post-imperial Assyria Assur 
continues to be attested in personal names 
and in Aramaic votive inscriptions from the 
city itself. 

HI. In the OT "assür, 'Ashur; Assyria', 
occurs as a designation of the city (Gen 


2:4), the country (e.g. Gen 9; Hos 7:11; Isa 
7:8) or the people (e.g. Isa 10:5.12; Mic 5:4) 
of Ashur, The name of the deity occurs as 
theophoric element in the name of king 
'esar-haddón, Esarhaddon (Isa 37:38 = 2 
Kgs 19:37, Ezra 4:2; cf. the spelling ?srldn, 
Ahigar:5). The /s/ reflects the Neo-Assyrian 
pronounciation of the alveolar (MILLARD 
1976:9). 
IV. Bibliography 

B. AGGOULA, Inscriptions et graffites 
araméens d'Assur (Napels 19855 M. 
CoGan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, 
Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh 
Centuries B.C.E. (Missoula 1974); G. VAN 
DRIEL, The Cult of Assur (Assen 1969); H. 
HinscH, Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen 
Religion (AfO Beiheft 13/14; Graz 1961); 
W. G. Lambert, The God A&Sur, Iraq 45 
(1983) 82-86; M. T. Larsen, The Old 
Assyrian State and its Colonies (Copen- 
hagen 1976); B. MENZEL, Assyrische 
Tempel (StPsm 10/1, Il; Rome 1981); J. W. 
McKay, Religion in Judah under the Assyr- 
ians, 732-609 B.C. (London 1973); A. R. 
MILLARD, Assyrian Royal Names in Bibli- 
cal Hebrew, JSS 21 (1976) 1-14; K. F. 
MÜLLER, Das assyrische Ritual, Texte zum 
assyrischen Kónigsritual, 1 (Leipzig 1937); 
K. TALLovist, Der assyrische Gott (StOr 
4/3; Helsinki 1932). 


A. LIVINGSTONE 


ASTARTE 7p 

I. The divine name Astarte is found in 
the following forms: Ug *trt ('Athtart[u]'); 
Phoen *3tr1 ('Ashtart'); Heb 'Astóret (singu- 
lar); ‘AStar6t (generally construed as plural); 
Eg variously ‘strt, ‘strt, istrt; Gk Astarté. It 
is the feminine form of the masculine ‘ir 
(‘Athtar’, ‘Ashtar’) and this in turn occurs, 
though as the name of a goddess, as Akka- 
dian -*Ishtar. The Akkadian A3-tar-[tumn?] is 
used of her (AGE 330). The etymology 
remains obscure. It is probably, in the mas- 
culine form, the name of the planet Venus, 
then extended to the feminine as well (cf. A. 
S. YAHUDA, JRAS 8 [1946] 174-178). It is 
unlikely that ROBERTSON SMITH’s sugge- 
stion (Religion of the Semites [Edinburgh 


109 


ASTARTE 





19273] 99 n. 2, esp. 310, 469-479), referring 
to Arabic ‘dtir, ‘irrigated land’, is of help; 
because it still leaves the t, which cannot be 
infixed, unexplained. Both god and goddess 
are probably, but not certainly, to be seen as 
the deified Venus (HEIMPEL 1982:13-14). 
This is indeed the case, since if the morning 
star is the male deity (cf. Isa 14:12), then 
the goddess would be the evening star: as 
she is in Greek tradition. (The two appe- 
arances of Venus are also probably to be 
seen as deified, cf. Shahar and ^Shalem.) 

II. Ugarit. The goddess Ashtart is men- 
tioned 46 times in the Ugaritic texts, but 
appears relatively rarely in the mythological 
texts. These appearances are as follows: in 
the Baal cycle (KTU 1.2 i 7-8) Baal curses 
Yam  (-sea) inviting -*Horon (cf. 
-*Horus!) and 'Ashtart-5m-Baal' (see below) 
to smash his skull—Keret uses the same 
curse on his son Yasib in KTU 1.16 vi 54- 
57, showing it to be formulaic language. 
When Baal loses control in the divine coun- 
cil at the appearance of Yam's ambassadors, 
-Anat and Ashtart restrain him forcibly 
(KTU 1.2 i 40). When Baal is about to kill 
Yam, Ashtart intervenes: cither to taunt 
Baal(?), or more probably to urge him to 
deliver the coup de gráce (KTU 1.2 iv 28- 
30). In the Keret story, in addition to the 
curse noted above, Hurriya is compared in 
her beauty with Anat and Ashtart (KTU 1.14 
iii 41-44 = vi:26-30). The fragmentary KTU 
1.92 seems to have contained a myth con- 
ceming Ashtart (PRU 5, 3-5: §1; HERR- 
MANN 1969:6-16). In KTU 1. 100, a series 
of spells against snake-bites, she is paired 
with Anat (in the order Anat and Ashtart) in 
ll. 19-24, in addition to further mentions 
alone, twice as a toponym (cf. KTU 1.108. 
2). In the fragmentary KTU 1.107, another 
such text, Anat and Ashtart are invoked. The 
latter appears again as a toponym. In KTU 
1.114 (the Marzihu text), Ashtart and Anat 
(in that order) summon the dog-like Yarihu 
in order to throw him meat (ll. 9-11); and, 
when >El becomes drunk, Anat and Ashtart 
go off to find purgatives, returning as 
Ashtart and Anat (a chiastic arrangement, ll. 
22-26). 


The relation of Ashtart and Anat sug- 
gested by these occurrences is evidently 
close. It may represent an early stage in a 
process of syncretism of the two goddesses. 
It may be noted that their iconography is 
similar; because both appear armed and 
wearing the Egyptian Atef crown. This close 
relationship is also reflected in the Egyptian 
evidence. They are commonly understood to 
be consorts of Baal; but there is no direct 
evidence for this at Ugarit. The interpreta- 
tion of various texts as describing sexual 
intercourse between Anat and Baal has 
recently been questioned (P. L. Dav, The 
Bible and the Politics of Exegesis (ed. D. 
Jobling; Cleveland 1991] 141-146, 329-333; 
id, JNES 51 [1992] 181-190), and no such 
relationship between Ashtart and Baal is 
mentioned. (The evidence cited could equal- 
ly well be used to define her as Horon's 
consort.) The nearest the tradition comes 
even to associating them is in the title ‘srt 
šm b'l. This has been interpreted in two 
ways: as ‘Ashtart-name-of-Baal’, sc. as the 
reputation, honour, or even ‘Shakti’ of Baal 
(e.g. GINSBERG, ANET 130a), or as ‘Ashtart- 
heavens-of-Baal' (Dussaup 1947:220-221, 
who cites Astarte's epithets Asteria, Astroar- 
che, Astronoé and Ourania). The latter sense 
is to be preferred. This title also appears on 
Eshmunazar's sarcophagus (below). In addi- 
tion to various mentions in minor texts, 
Ashtart appears in the pantheon lists (KTU 
1.47. 25 = KTU 1.118. 24) as the equivalent 
of Ishtar in RS 20. 24, 24. 

Egypt. Astarte is mentioned a number of 
times in texts from Egypt. In one instance, 
her name is written *ntrt. Even if this is 
simply a misspelling, as LECLANT (1960:6 n. 
2) suggests, it is still ‘revealing’ (but cf. 
ANET 201a n. 16). In the Contendings of 
Horus and Seth (iii 4), Seth is given Anat 
and Astane, the daughters of >Re, as wives. 
This is a mythologisation of the importing 
of Semitic deities into Egypt under the 
Hyksos and later, and the New Kingdom 
fashion for the goddesses in particular. Seth 
and Baal were identified. But this does not 
justify retrojecting Egyptian mythological 
relationships into the Ugaritic context. Anat 


110 


ASTARTE 


and Astarte are described in a New King- 
dom text (Harris magical papyrus iii 5 in: 
PRITCHARD [1943:79]) as “the two great 
goddesses who were pregnant but did not 
bear", on which basis ALBRIGHT (1956:75) 
concludes that they are "perennially fruitful 
without ever losing virginity”, He also 
asserts that “sex was their primary func- 
tion". Both assumptions are questionable, 
not to say mutually incompatible! As wives 
of Seth, who rapes rather than makes love to 
them, their fruitless conceptions are an 
extension of his symbolism as the god of 
disorder, rather than qualities of their own. 
In the fragmentary ‘Astarte papyrus’ (ANET 
17-18; see HELCK 1983) the goddess is the 
daughter of ->Ptah and is demanded by the 
—Sea in marriage. This myth may be related 
to a recension of the Ugaritic Baal myth: as 
well as to that of -*Perseus and Andromeda. 
Astarte's primary characteristic in Egypt is 
as a war-goddess. An inscription at Medinet 
Habu (ARE iii 62, 105), for instance, says of 
Rameses JI that Mont and Seth are with 
him in every fray, and Anat and Astarte are 
his shield. She frequently appears in New 
Kingdom art armed, wearing the Atef crown 
and riding a horse (LEcLANT 1960). A 
Ptolemaic text (ANET 250 n. 16) calls her 
"Astarte, Mistress of Horses, Lady of the 
Chariot". The first part may echo ATU 1.86. 
6, which appears to link Ashtart (and Anat?) 
with a horse (PRU 5, 189 [$158], Wvarr, 
UF 16 [1984] 333-335). In the now lost 
Winchester stela (EDwarps, JNES 14 
[1955] 49) the goddess appears on a lion (a 
trait normally associated with Ishtar) and 
was apparently identified with Qadeshet and 
Anat. 

Phoenicia. Though she was undoubtedly 
an important deity in Phoenicia throughout 
the first millennium, there is surprisingly 
litde direct written evidence. KA/ lists only 
1] Phoenician examples: ranging from Ur 
and Egypt to Malta and Carthage. The most 
important items are the following. The sar- 
cophagus of Tabnit from Sidon dates from 
the sixth century BCE (KA/ 13, ANET 662a). 
Since the king is also priest of Ashtart. we 
may suppose she was an important goddess 


in the city: if not its patroness. This is in 
interesting tension with Athirat’s apparently 
similar status in the Keret story (KTU 1.14 
iv:34-36). The curse of the goddess is in- 
voked against grave-robbers. The sarcopha- 
gus of his son Eshmunazar (KAI 14, ANET 
662ab). from the beginning of the following 
century, states that his mother was priestess 
of Ashtart; and that the royal family spon- 
sored (rebuilt?) a temple for Ashtart (in the 
form Ashtart-§m-Baal) in —Sidon, thus 
benefitting her cult in Byblos. A votive 
throne from south of Tyre, dating to the 
second century BCE (KAI 17), addresses the 
goddess as ‘my Great Lady’ (rbty); but per- 
haps without the old ideological overtones. 
The same expression is used of Ashtart and 
‘Tanit of the Lebanon’ (this may denote a 
local feature at Carthage) on an inscribed 
slab, of uncertain date, from Carthage (KA/ 
81). 

It will be apparent from the lack of bibli- 
cal references to a living cult of Anat that 
the goddess must have undergone some 
transformation by about the beginning of the 
first millennium BCE. The constant juxtapo- 
sition of the goddesses in the Ugaritic and 
Egyptian records indicates what must have 
happened. They appear to have fused into 
the goddess ->Atargatis; although we have 
just seen that Ashtart also retained her inde- 
pendence for centuries. The name Atargatis 
(Greek, Aramaic ’tr‘?’) is generally agreed to 
be made up from the Aramaic development 
of Ashtart (‘Strt) into Atar Cr note the 
weakening of the guttural) together with 
Anat (‘nt) weakened by assimilation of the 
medial n into 'r(1). Some see Asherah as- 
similated to Anat (sce AsTOUR, Hellenose- 
mitica [19672] 206); but this is less likely. 
Occasional inscriptions to the goddess are 
found in Aramaic (KAI 239, 247, 248). 
Atargatis, in her form at Hierapolis in the 
second century CE, is the subject of Lucian's 
work De Dea Syria. Lucian writes of Astarte 
of Sidon, §4, whom he identifies as the 
-»Moon. Hc also claims that the local priest- 
hood identified her with Europa. He 
identifies the goddess of Byblos (probably 
another local Astarte) with ^ Aphrodite. The 


111 


ASTARTE 


common identiate in the Cypriot cult (§6), 
the Astarte of a temple on the Lebanon 
mountain (sc. at Afqa), he says was founded 
by Kinyras (sc. Kinnor) (§9). The goddess 
(Atargatis) of Hicrapolis, founded by Deuca- 
lion or Semiramis, he identifies with Hera 
or Derceto ($812, 14). Given the character 
of Atargatis, it is perhaps significant that 
Anat is called both ‘mistress of dominion’ 
and ‘mistress of the high heavens’ (b‘It drkt 
b‘lt mm rmm: the. Ugaritic equivalents of 
Derceto and Semiramis) among other titles 
in KTU 1.108. 6-7. Much of Lucian's infor- 
mation seems to be a loose mixture of 
Greek and Syrian traditions, but still has 
some genuine echoes from the past. Another 
important source reflecting a Graeco-Semitic 
rationalising of tradition is Eusebius’ Praep. 
Ev., which has Astarte as a daughter of 
Ouranos (~Heaven) and sister to Rhea and 
Dione: all three become wives of Kronos. 
Astarte has seven daughters by Kronos. The 
latter appears to be the equivalent of >El. A 
direct quotation from Philo Byblius states 
that “Astarte, the great goddess, and Zeus 
Demarous, and Adodos king of gods, reigned 
over the country (sc. Phoenicia) with the 
consent of Kronos. And Astarte set the head 
of a bull upon her own head as a mark of 
royalty, and in traveling round the world she 
found a -*star fallen from the sky, which 
she took up and consecrated in the holy 
island Tyre. And the Phoenicians say that 
Astarte is Aphrodite.” (1.10:17-18, 21) The 
Greek goddess -^Artemis may also preserve 
traits of Phoenician Ashtart (WEsr, UF 23 
[1991] 379-381). 

III. The divine name Ashtart occurs nine 
times in MT, from which one should per- 
haps be subtracted (1 Sam 7:3) and to which 
a further instance should perhaps be added, 
ie. Judg 3:7. This alteration, widely ac- 
cepted, is based on the wording of Judg 
2:13. It summarises the popular devotions of 
the pre-monarchical period as apostasy. This 
verse raises some interesting questions. MT 
reads labba‘al wélá'astárót, using the singu- 
lar of ba‘al, (supported by LXX) but, on 
most scholars’ assessment, the plural form 
for the goddess (supported by LXX!). Thus 


RSV, REB, read respectively ‘the Baals and 
the Ashtaroth' and ‘the baalim and the 
ashtaroth'. Note, however, that bé'álim does 
occur in the plural in 2:11. (Clearly there is 
some redundancy in vv 11-13.) RSV recog- 
nises the names, though plural. REB gen- 
ericises them. JB, on the other hand reads 
‘Baal and Astarte’. The 'Baalim' are often 
referred to in the plural (‘emphatic plural’: 
BDB 127) and are so construed by many 
commentators. The Ashtaroth are, thus, 
understood as a class of goddesses. Whether 
or not ’asérdér should be corrected at Judg 
3:7, it is the same principle. But, given the 
phonology of the divine name, we should 
perhaps question the plural interpretation: 
even if it be allowed that it came to be 
understood in this way. The only vocalised 
forms of the name are, of course, the 
Hebrew and Greek. The other West Semitic 
forms are conventionally vocalised 'Ashtart' 
or ‘Athtart’; but it is quite possible that the 
Original vocalisation was “attardt(u), 
which. with the southern shift of à to 6 (as 
in Dāgān > Dágón) would become 'astárót 
in Hebrew. Conversely, the expected singu- 
lar—if the form found were the plural— 
would be “‘astdrd, with the final -at 
weakening to d. The toponyms mentioned 
below support this alternative. explanation. 
Further, the three-vowel formation is sup- 
ported by the other form occurring, viz. 
'astóret. To argue that this formation is due 
to the adoption of the vowels of bdser begs 
the question. There would have needed to be 
at least the vocal skeleton (that is, a word or 
in this case part of a word carrying two 
vowels) for the bó$et vowels to fit. The 
adoption of this vowel pattern (bdSet) is per- 
haps not in dispute, though the reason com- 
monly given is arguably misconstrued. 
JasrROW's suggestion (1894) makes better 
sense, in offering a closer parallel to thc 
revocalising of the tetragrammaton to carry 
the vowels of *ádónay. lt is suggested, there- 
fore, that ‘Ashtaroth’ is in fact a singular 
form, though it might well come to be inter- 
preted in the plural, as an indication of the 
scribal tradition’s view of the enormity of 
worshipping other deities, and thus repre- 


112 


ASTARTE 





senting all such cults as polytheistic. As for 
‘Ashtoreth’ (‘astéret), this may well be 
explained as the singular carrying the 
vowels of bófer; albeit on JASTROW's under- 
standing of the usage (1894). It is, however, 
possible that another explanation of this 
form is the assumption of an early form 
*'astárit, in. which case the conventional 
shift of à-i to ó-e (as in šāpit > $opej) would 
occur. If this is so, we should look for dia- 
lectal variants of the name. 

Judg 10:6, | Sam 7:4 and 12:10 all refer 
to ‘the Baals and the Ashtaroth'. In the 
second instance, LXX has the curious read- 
ing tas Baalim Kai ta alsé Astaróth, "and the 
(f.!) Baals and the (n. pl.!) groves-Ashtaroth", 
an impossible combination of Ashtart and 
Asherah elements, while in the third, LXX 
reads tois Baalim Kai tois alsesin. In 1 Sam 
7:3 the allusion looks like a secondary addi- 
tion at the end of the sentence (hdsirit ’et- 
?élóhé hannékár  mittókékem  wéhàá'astárót). 
LXX, however, reads ...kai ta alsé, thus 
presupposing Aid'áserím. In 1 Sam 31:10, the 
armour of Saul is hung on the walls of ‘the 
temple of Ashtart (‘astdré1)’ (LXX to Astar- 
teion, // | Chr 10:10: bét "élóhéhem). Com- 
mentators usually change the pointing to 
‘astoret (thus SMITH, The books of Samuel 
[ICC; Edinburgh 1899] 253) or regard the 
temple as dedicated to ‘the Ashtaroth’ (pl.: 
thus HERZBERG, / and IH Samuel [London 
1964] 233). On the basis of the argument 
that the form is singular, no change to MT 
is required. 

The other three occurrences all point the 
name 'astóret and do not use the article. 
These passages overtly refer. however, not 
to an Israelite or Judahite goddess, but to 
‘Ashtoreth, goddess (’éléhé!) of the Sidon- 
ians' in 1 Kgs 11:5.33 as importations by 
Solomon to please his wives; while in 2 Kgs 
23:13, in the account of Josiah’s destruction 
of Ashtart’s shrine, she is referred to as 
Sigqtts, ‘abomination’. It is probably Ash- 
tart who was denoted by the title -*'Qucen 
of heaven', referred to in cults of the end of 
the monarchy (Jer 7:18; 44:17-19.25). 

As well as serving as the divine name, 
the word appears in the expression ‘aStérét 


sõn in Deut 7:13; 28:4.18.51. It means 
something like ‘lamb-bearing flocks’ or 
‘ewes of the flock’. This appears to be an 
application of the name of the goddess as a 
term for the reproductive capacity of ewes. 

It also appears in a toponym, which goes 
back to the pre-settlement era. It denotes a 
city named after the goddess. Gen 14:5 
mentions Ashtaroth Qarnaim, — which 
AsTOUR (ABD 1 (1992] 491; contrast Dav, 
ABD | [1992] 492) takes to be Ashtaroth 
near Qarnaim, and identifies with the Ashta- 
roth associated with -*Og king of —Bashan 
(Josh 9:10). In Josh 21:27, this appears as 
béestérd, (LXX Bosoran = Bosra!) which 
should, however, be harmonised with 
‘astarét (LXX Aséroth) in 1 Chr 6:56 (71). 
In Josh 12:4; 13:12.31, this is linked with 
Edrei (the latter added to Josh 9:10 in 
LXX), and the two cities appear together as 
the seat of the chthonian god ‘Rapiu’ in 
KTU 1.108. 2-3 (most recently PARDEE, 
RSOu IV [Textes paramythologiques; Paris 
1988] 81, 94-97). It is probably also the city 
Astartu mentioned in the Amarna letters (EA 
197:10, 256:21). This pronunciation and 
obvious sense (as the name of a singular 
goddess) may be taken to confirm the singu- 
lar interpretation of the biblical toponym 
and divine name. It is supported by the refe- 
rence to the Beth-Shean temple of the god- 
dess in 1 Sam 31:10. 1 Chr 11:44 is the gen- 
tilic of the city. 

The problem of pointing may be resolved 
thus: ‘Ashtaroth’ is the Hebrew and 'Ash- 
toreth' a Phoenician (Sidonian) form of thc 
same name. The goddess is well-established 
as a war-goddess (by the Egyptian epi- 
graphic and iconographic evidence, as well 
as the trophies offered at Beth Shean), while 
her ‘sexual’ role. conceived as primary by 
ALBRIGHT (1956), is scarcely hinted at by 
the evidence adduced. It appears, rather, to 
belong to a blanket judgment on Canaanite 
goddesses made by biblical scholars on the 
basis of meagre evidence such as Hosea’s 
sexual allusions. It is better explained as a 
metaphor for apostasy (cf. B. MARGALIT, VT 
40 [1990] 278-284). The Hebrew singular 
form 'astárót has subsequently been read as 


113 


ATARGATIS 


a plural and incorporated into the reference 
to b&Glim wéhd‘astarét. In doing so, it has 
simply become, like bé'álim, a generic term. 
It is comparable to the Akkadian expression 
ilànu u istarátu, *gods and goddesses’. 
IV. Bibliography 

W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archeology and the Relig- 
ion of Israel (Baltimore 19564) 73-78; P. 
BonDREUIL, Ashtart de Mari et les dieux 
d'Ougarit, MARI 4 (1989) 545-547; D. J. A. 
CLINES, Mordecai, ABD 4 (1992) 902-904, 
esp. 902; A. Cooper, Divine names and 
epithets in the Ugaritic texts, RSP III $23, 
403-406; J. Day, Ashtoreth, ABD I (1992) 
491-494; M. DELCOR, Le culte de la ‘Reine 
du Ciel’ selon Jer 7, 18; 44, 17-19, 25 et ses 
survivances, Von Kanaan bis Kerala (FS. 
Van der Ploeg, eds. W. L. Delsman et al., 
AOAT 211; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982) 101- 
122; -Detcor, LIMC II.1 (1986) 1077- 
1085; R. Dussaup, Astarté, Pontos et Baal, 
CRAIBL (1947) 201-224; W. HELCK, Zur 
Herkunft der Erzählung des sog. “Astarte 
Papyrus”, Fontes atque Pontes. FS. H. 
Brunner (ed. M. Görg; Wiesbaden 1983) 
215-223; W. HEMPEL, A Catalog of Near 
Eastem Venus Deities, SMS 4 (1982) 9-22; 
W. HERRMANN, Aštan, MIO 15 (1969) 6- 
52; F. O. HVIDBERG-HANSON, La déesse 
TNT (Copenhagen 1979) i 106-112, ii 147- 
155; HvipsBerG-HANsoN, Uni-Ashtart and 
Tanit-Iuno Caelestis, Archaeology and Fer- 
tility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (ed. 
A. Bonanno; Valetta 1986) 170-195; M. 
Jastrow, The element bošet in Hebrew 
proper names, JBL 13 (1894) 19-30; *J. 
LECLANT, Astarté à cheval d'après les repré- 
sentations égyptiennes, Syria 37 (1960) 1- 
67; R. du MESNIL du BuissoN, ‘AStart et 
*AStar à Ras-Shamra, JEOL 3 (1946) 406; 
C. A. Moore, Esther, Book of, ABD 2 
(1992) 633-643, esp. 633; S. M. OLYAN, 
Some Observations Conceming the Identity 
of the Queen of Heaven, UF 19 (1987) 161- 
174; M. H. Pope, ‘Attart, ‘Aštart, Astarte, 
WbMyth V1, 250-252; *J. B. PRITCHARD, 
Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain 
Goddesses Known through Literature (AOS 
24; New Haven 1943) 65-76, 90-95; M. 
WEINFELD, The Worship of Molech and the 


Queen of Heaven and Its Background, UF 4 
(1972) 133-154. 


N. WYATT 


ATARGATIS ‘Atapyatis 

I. The goddess Atargatis does not occur 
in the Bible, but her sanctuary, an Atar- 
gateion, is mentioned in 2 Macc 12:26. It 
was situated near Qarnaim, present day 
Sheich Sa‘ad 4 km north of Ashtarot- 
Qarnaim in the Hauran (cf. 1 Macc 5:42-44; 
2 Macc 12:21-23; M. C. Astour, Ashte- 
roth-Karnaim, ABD | [1992] 49). Her name 
is a compound of Ashtarte (-*Astarte) and 
‘Anat (Anat) and is spelled in various 
ways: in Aramaic ‘trth, trr, trth, "trt, 
trt, in Greek ‘Atapyatic, ‘Atdpyatic, 
‘Attaya@n, ‘Atapam, ‘Atapyam; the apo- 
cope form gave Derketo. Her main sanctu- 
ary was in Hierapolis/Mabbug in northem 
Syria, where she was venerated together 
with Hadad (Zeus), the Syrian god of 
—heaven, rain and fertility. From there her 
cult spread throughout Syria, northern Mes- 
opotamia and into the West, where she is 
known as the Dea Syria. 

II. The cult of Atargatis in Syria and 
Mesopotamia is known from a wide variety 
of literary sources, inscriptions, coins, sculp- 
tures and terracottas, which display a range 
of local variants as well as a general pattern. 
The earliest phase is represented by a bewil- 
dering varicty of late 4th and early 3rd cent. 
BCE coins from Hierapolis. Her name occurs 
on them as ‘th and as ‘trth. The original 
name of the goddess is certainly ‘th, where- 
as the element ‘tr, derived from ‘Str, has the 
meaning of goddess, so that the full name 
‘trth means “the goddess ‘Ateh”, ‘Ateh 
being the goddess par excellence. The name 
‘th is the Aramaic form of Anat and fre- 
quently occurs as a theophoric element in 
proper names in Syria and northem Mes- 
opotamia (DRUVERS 1980:88). The goddess 
is represented on these coins with a turreted 
tiara, with a lion or riding on a lion, 
between two sphinxes or enthroned, with a 
variety of objects in her right hand, a branch 
or a cup, and sometimes leaning on a 


114 


ATARGATIS 


sceptre. This iconographical repertoire 
represents a mother goddess, a protecting 
potnia thérén, with life-giving and protec- 
tive aspects. It is partly related to the icono- 
graphy of -*Cybele, the Magna Mater. 
Coins from Hierapolis from the 2nd and 3rd 
cent. CE usually picture an enthroned Atar- 
gatis between two lions with different at- 
tributes in her hand, tympanum, cars of 
corn, staff or spindle, mirror, sceptre, 
semeion, or a leaf, and with different jewel- 
lery and headdress, sometimes with fishes or 
~doves. Another type is Atargatis with a 
mural crown. As such she functions as the 
—Tyche of Hierapolis and other Syrian and 
Mesopotamian towns like Edessa, Harran, 
Nisibis, Resh Aina and Palmyra. Other icon- 
ographical types are an enthroned Atargatis 
accompanied by one lion, without lions, or 
in a standing position. This variety is partly 
caused by the spread of the dominant cult of 
Hierapolis throughout the Syrian and Mes- 
opotamian area and the subsequent adapta- 
tion of local cults of mother goddesses 
modelled on that of Hierapolis. The wide 
range of variants in the iconography as well 
as in the epigraphic repertoire of Atargatis 
demonstrates this process of religious assi- 
milation which made Atargatis of Hierapolis 
into the Dea Syria venerated throughout the 
Roman empire. Lucian of Samosata wrote 
his De Syria Dea in the second century CE 
on the goddess of Hierapolis, her sanctuary 
and her cult in which he relates her to a 
range of other goddesses such as -*Hera, 
-— Athena, -*Aphrodite, -*Artemis, Nemesis 
and the Moirai, in order to explain her real 
character. She displays therefore aspects 
which are represented by other goddesses in 
hellenistic culture. This process often makes 
it difficult to decide whether the cult of 
Atargatis at a certain place is actually a 
branch of the sanctuary of Hierapolis or a 
local cult of a mother goddess adapted to 
the practice of Hierapolis/Mabbug. 

At Hierapolis Atargatis’ sanctuary func- 
tioned as an asylum, where it was strictly 
forbidden to kill an animal or a human 
being, in accordance with the goddess’ life- 
giving and protective character. Emascula- 


tion was practised in her cult, a custom later 
widely observed in Christian Syria. A large 
pond with fish, usually carps, was part of 
her sanctuary at Hierapolis and at other 
places, e.g. at Edessa and on the island of 
Delos, and symbolised Atargatis’ life-giving 
and fertility aspects. Purification rites were 
certainly part of her cult as well as a taboo 
on certain food. 

III. The sanctuary of Atargatis near 
Qarnaim (2 Macc 12:26) has not been found 
by archaeologists. An altar from Tell el- 
Ash‘ari near ancient Qarnaim is dedicated to 
Artemidi téi Kurdi, the mistress Artemis 
(IGR III, 1163; see D. SouRDEL, Les cultes 
du Hauran à l'époque romaine (Paris 1952] 
42). Since Artemis is equivalent to Atargatis 
in various inscriptions from Syria, Artemis 
is here just another name of Atargatis, 
which highlights her character of protectress 
of animal and human life in the semi-nomad 
culture of the mainly Nabatean and Arab 
population of hellenistic Hauran. In such a 
society a sanctuary of Atargatis functioned 
as an asylum. The text of 2 Macc 12:21-26 
suggests that Judas Maccabaeus’ enemies 
took refuge inside the temenos of Atargatis, 
where Judas killed them (sce E. KAUTZSCH, 
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten 
Testaments ] [Tübingen 1900] 111, note c.). 
F. BAETHGEN (Beiträge zur semitischen 
Religionsgeschichte (Berlin 1988] 68; cf. 
e.g. J. A. MoNTGOMERY & H. S. GEHMAN, 
Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951] 474; J. GRAY, 
I & II Kings (London ?1977] 654) equated 
the enigmatic deity —Tartak, venerated by 
the settlers coming from Avvah (2 Kgs 
17:31) with  Atargatis. Since this 
identification is very unlikely from an ety- 
mological point of view, this interpretation 
is now abandoned (cf. L. K. HANDY, Tar- 
tak, ABD 6 [1992] 334-335). 

IV. Bibliography 
H. J. W. DRuVvERS, Cults and Beliefs at 
Edessa (EPRO 72; Leiden 1980) 76-121; 
DriJverS, Sanctuaries and Social Safety, 
Visible Religion. Annual for Religious Icon- 
ography 1 (1982) 65-75; Drivers, Dea 
Syria, LIMC 11, 355-358; N. GLUECK, Dei- 
ties and Dolphins. The Story of the Nabatae- 


115 


ATHENA 





ans (London 1965) 359-392; M. Horic, 
Dea Syria. Studien zur religiósen Tradition 
der Fruchibarkeitsgóttin in’ Vorderasien 
(AOAT 208; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979); 
Ho6ric, Dea Syria—Atargatis, ANRW ll, 
17,3 (1983) 1536-1581: R. MourERDE, Dea 
Syria en Syrie, MUSJ 23 (1942-43) 137- 
142; R. A. ODEN, Studies in Lucian’s De 
Syria Dea (HSM 15: Missoula 1977); H. 
SEvnIG, Les dieux de Hiérapolis, Syria 37 
(1960) 233-252; SEvRIG, Le monnayage de 
Hiérapolis de Syrie à l'époque d' Alexandre, 
Revue numismatique (1971) 11-12; P.-L. 
VaN BERG, Corpus Cultus Deae Syriae 1. 
Les sources littéraires, 2 vols. (EPRO 28; 
Leiden 1972); F. R. WALTON, Atargatis, 
RAC 1 (1950) 854-860. 


H. J. W. DRUVERS 


ATHENA "A8nvaíia, 'A0rvn 

I. Athena is the main polis divinity in 
Greek religion. The Romans identified her 
with Minerva (etrusc. Menrva); the Greeks 
themselves found numerous homologues in 
the ancient Near East, e.g. the Egyptian 
Neith of Saïs (Mora 1985:95) and the Ug- 
aritic-Syrian —>Anat (CIS 1,95). The affili- 
ation between the armed Greek goddess and 
Near Eastern armed goddesses like Anat or 
— Ishtar (COLBOW 1991) is controversial, but 
Oriental influence is plausible. In the Bible, 
Athena occurs only as the root element in 
the toponym Athens (Acts 17:15) and in the 
anthroponym Athenobius (1 Macc 15:28). 

Hl. An early form of her name, Arana 
potinija, is attested in a Bronze Age Linear 
B tablet from Knossos (GERARD-ROUSSEAU 
1968:44-45). The meaning is disputed; pre- 
sumably, it is “Mistress of (a place called) 
At(h)ana". The debate about the priority of 
Athenai (Athens) or Athena now favours the 
place name; the Homeric and later forms of 
her name, ‘A@nvaia - ‘A@nvain, are most 
easily understood as adjectives, “She from 
Athana(i)", “The Lady of Athens"; the 
Homeric epithet Alalkemeneis connects her 
with another town, the small Boeotian 
Alalakomenai. 

A fundamental function of Athena is the 
protection of cities; as such, she bears the 


epithet Polias or Poliouchos. This function 
is already present in Homer. In time of cri- 
sis, the women of Troy offer a peplos to her 
enthroned image and pray for her protection 
(Iliad 6,302-303). Athens especially is 
defined through her cult and mythology 
(Iliad 2,549-550). In later texts, one of her 
main epithets is Polias or Poliouchos, and 
her temple is attested on many acropoleis 
throughout the Greek world; only Apollo is 
as often attested as owner of a main polis 
sanctuary. 

After the Minoan and Mycenaean Bronze 
Age culture had been discovered as the 
possible precursors of Greek culture, 
scholars tried to derive Athena’s paramount 
function and character from the role of a 
Mycenaean palace goddess which in turn 
would go back to a Minoan house goddess 
(NILSSON 1950:488-501). The main argu- 
ment for the first thesis was that in Mycenae 
and presumably in Athens a temple of Athe- 
na in the first millennium preserved the 
location of a Mycenaean palace; other argu- 
ments—her relationship to the snake which 
had been understood as the guardian of the 
house, with the so-called Shield Goddess of 
Mycenae, Known from  iconographical 
sources—scemed to point in the same direc- 
tion; the Minoan roots were scen in her 
association with snake and bird. The deriv- 
ation remains hypothetical at best; especially 
the thesis of a Minoan origin seems to read 
diachronically what could also be viewed 
functionally. 

Her protection takes two forms, that of a 
talismanic statuette of an armed goddess 
whose possession guarantees the safety of a 
town (the palladium, which Herodotus 4,189 
defines as a “statue of (Pallas) Athena"), and 
that of her being the goddess of war or 
rather of warriors. According to myth, Troy 
would survive as long as the palladium was 
inside; the town fell, after Odysseus and 
Diomedes had stolen it. Other towns 
claimed to possess it afterwards, chiefly 
Athens (Pausanias 1,28,9) and Rome (Livy 
5,52,7 etc.); in all cases, the story fits a pat- 
tern of myth and ritual which need not be 
connected with Athena. 

Like the Palladion, Athena usually bears 


116 


ATHENA 


weapons, helmet, lance, and shield. As a 
warrior goddess, Athena is differentiated 
from -*Ares, the god of war, though the two 
are often paired together as divinitics of war 
and battle (e.g. Homer, /liad 5,430). Ares 
represents the fierce forces of fighting and 
killing without relationship to polis life 
where he has no important festivals; as a 
foreigner to the polis, myth makes him 
come from Thrace (Homer, /liad 13,301). 
Athena, on the other hand, is the warlike 
protectress of the polis against enemy 
attacks; as such, she protects the warriors. 
This role is reflected in the protection of 
mythical heroes, especially young ones like 
Achilles (/liad) and Jason, but also Odys- 
seus (Odyssey). This has been taken to mir- 
ror her role in initiation rituals of young 
warriors (BREMMER 1978); in fact, her con- 
nection with rituals which derive from this 
fundamental institution is somewhat 
tenuous: in the Athenian Aglaurion, she 
received the ephebic oath as Athena Arcia, 
together with Ares, Enyo, Enyalios and 
other local divinities (M. N. Topp, A selec- 
tion of Greek Historical Inscriptions 1l 
[Oxford 1948] no. 204), and she was the 
main divinity in the Attic-Ionian festival of 
the Apatouria (besides Zeus) whose func- 
tion—the integration of young members into 
the phratry—reflects similar concerns. 

She is more prominent as a divinity pre- 
siding over the ritual passage of young girls 
into society, especially but not exclusively 
in Athens. The Athenian Arrhephoroi, two 
girls from noble families, had to serve a 
year on the acropolis. Their ritual obliga- 
tions associate them with female adult life, 
their main duty being to start weaving the 
peplos for the goddess, their cultic roles 
bringing them together also with the cult of 
— Aphrodite; their aetiological myth, the 
story of Erichthonios and the daughters of 
Cecrops, focuses rather on the themes of 
sexuality and its dangers (BURKERT 1966). 
Similar rituals lie behind, e.g. the ritual of 
the Locrian Maidens who were annually 
sent to Athena Ilias (GRAF 1978). 

Compared to -*Artemis, who is morc 
prominent as a protectress of young women 
but whose main concem is with their biol- 


ogical function, Athena's domain is the cor- 
rect social behaviour of women; from this 
stems her function as Erganc, in which she 
presides over the female work. But the role 
of Athena Ergane was more global: together 
with Hephaestos, she protected also the arti- 
sans over whose skills she watched; she had 
found out how to hamess a horse, had 
taught how to build ships (her first construc- 
tion was Jason's Argo) and had cultivated 
the olive trec. The common denominator of 
these functions, as DETIENNE & VERNANT 
(1974) pointed out, is Athena's role as pur- 
veyor of practical intelligence and clever- 
ness as a fundamental ingredient of civiliza- 
tion; the myth of her contest with 
—Poseidon over the possession of Athens 
which was decided by the respective gifts, a 
salty spring from Poseidon, the cultivated 
olive tree from Athena, confront and evalu- 
ate miraculous nature which is socially use- 
less as opposed to socially very useful 
nature, which has been transformed and 
civilized. 

Athena’s main Athenian festivals give 
ritual expression to these themes; they clus- 
ter around the beginning of Athenian year in 
the month Hekatombaion (July-August) 
(DEUBNER 1932:9-39; BURKERT 1977:347- 
354). The cycle begins towards the end of 
the last month but one, Thargelion (May- 
June): on its 25th day, the Plynteria 
("Cleansing Festival"), the old wooden 
image of Athena on the acropolis was ritual- 
ly cleansed: its garments and ornaments 
were taken off, the image was carried to the 
sea, bathed, and brought back towards night 
onto the acropolis, where it was clad with a 
new peplos. The ritual depicts, in an casily 
understandable and widely diffused symbol- 
ism, the periodical renewal of the city's 
religious centre. Early in the following 
month (MIKALSON 1975:167), during the 
Arrhephoria, the Arrhephoroi ended their 
year of service on the acropolis by a secret 
ritual which brought them from the realm of 
Athena to the one of Aphrodite (Pausanias 
1,27,3), thus designating the passage to 
female adulthood; city and demes celebrated 
the day with sacrifices, i.e. to the polis pro- 
tectors Athena Polias and Zeus Policus, and 


117 


ATHENA 


to Kourotrophos, the protectress of human 
offspring. 

The first month of the year saw two state 
festivals of Athena which both dramatized 
the polis itself. On Hecatombaion 16, the 
Synoikia recalled the (mythical) constitution 
of the polis from independent villages by 
Theseus; the goddess received a sacrifice on 
the acropolis. After the ritual refounding of 
Athens, the Panathenaia of Hecatombaion 
28 presented the polis in all its splendour. 
Its main event was an impressive proces- 
sion, idealized in Pheidias’ frieze of the 
Parthenon; it moved from the margin of the 
city to its heart, the acropolis, and exhibited 
all constituent parts of the polis, from its 
officials at the head to its young warriors at 
the end; in the centre, it carried the new 
peplos for the goddess, which had bcen 
begun by the Arrhephoroi and was finished 
by representatives of all Athenian women. 
The presentation of this new garment links 
this final festival to the beginning of the 
cycle, the Plynteria. It also connects the 
Panathenaia with a further Athenian festival 
outside the New Year cycle, the Chalkeia of 
Pyanopsion 30 (October-November), in 
which the artisans, especially the metal- 
workers, led a sacrificial procession to Athe- 
na Ergane and Hephaistos. 

Though her main festivals seem to 
express an understandable and easy symbol- 
ism, her mythology is not without para- 
doxes— she is not only a virgin and a female 
warrior, but also the mother of Erichthonios, 
sprung from the head of her father, fully 
armed; she is closely connected with the 
snake and the owl, animals of earth and 
night. Evolutionary models dissolved the 
tensions into a historical fusion of hetero- 
gencous elements (synthesis NILSSON 1963: 
433-444); KERÉNY1 (1952) tried to dissolve 
some-of the paradoxes with the help of ana- 
lytical psychology; contemporary scholar- 
ship seems reluctant to follow and prefers 
functional analyses. 

Athena’s powers are ambivalent. Her 
warlike qualities protect the town but also 
make use of the horrors of war: her main 
symbol, often used as a deadly weapon, is 


the aegis; it contains the Gorgon’s head sur- 
rounded by snakes whose looks turned all 
on-lookers to stone. Besides, she shares this 
ambivalence with the young warriors them- 
selves who are positioned outside polis 
society. Her practical intelligence also is 
ambivalent because it is open to abuse; her 
mother Metis, “Crafty Intelligence”, could 
have offspring which threatened Zeus’ 
powers, therefore, the god swallowed the 
pregnant goddess and gave birth to Athena 
from his head (Hesiod, Theog.886-900. 924- 
926). The myth is comparable to the one of 
the ambivalent -*Dionysos: similar to poss- 
ible Near Eastern narrative models (KIRK 
1970:215-217), the story evaluates civilizing 
intelligence as having a Zeus-like power, but 
lying outside the norms of nature; Hephae- 
stos, the divine blacksmith and artisan, 
shares some of these ambivalences. 

III. The Bible never mentions Athena, 
although Athens and the Athenians occur 
several times in NT (Acts 17:15-16; 17:21- 
22; 18:1; 1 Thess 3:1). Paul's discourse on 
the Areopagus (Acts 17:22) stresses the 
religious zeal of the Athenians without 
giving any details except the altar of the 
—Unknown God. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. BREMMER, Heroes, Rituals and the Trojan 
War, Studi storico-religiosi 2 (1978) 5-38; 
W. BURKERT, Kekropidensage und Arrhe- 
phoria. Vom  Initiationsritus zum Pan- 
athenienfest, Hennes 94 (1966) 1-25; 
BURKERT, Griechische Religion der archa- 
ischen und klassischen Epoche (RdM 15; 
Stuttgart 1977); G. CoLsow, Die kriege- 
rische Ištar. Zu den Erscheinungsformen 
bewaffneter Gottheiten zwischen der Mitte 
des 3. und der Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends 
(Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 12; 
Munich 1991); M. DETIENNE & J. P. VER- 
NANT, Les ruses de l'intelligence. La mètis 
des grecs (Paris 1974); L. DEUBNER, 
Attische Feste (Berlin 1932); M. GÉRARD- 
Rousseau, Les mentions religieuses dans 
les tablettes mycéniennes (Incunabula Grac- 
ca 29; Rome 1968); F. Grar, Die lokrischen 
Müdchen, Studi storico-religiosi 2 (1978) 
61-79; C. J. HERINGTON, Athena Parthenos 


118 


ATUM 


and Athena Polias (Manchester 1955); K. 
KERENYI, Die Jungfrau und Mutter der grie- 
chischen Religion. Eine Studie iiber Pallas 
Athene (Albae Vigiliae, N.S. 12; Zürich 
1952); G. S. Kirk, Myth. Its Meaning and 
Function in Ancient and Other Culture (Sat- 
her Classical Lectures 40, Berkeley 1970); J. 
D. MIKALSON, The Sacred and Civil Calen- 
dar of the Athenian Year (Princeton 1975); 
F. Mona, Religione e religioni nelle storie 
di Erodoto (Milan 1985); M. P. NILSSON, 
Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Sur- 
vival in Greek Religion, 2nd edition (Lund 
1950); NiLssoN, Geschichte der griech- 
ischen Religion. Erster Band: Die Religion 
Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Welt- 
herrschaft, 3rd edition (HAW V/2.1; Munich 
1965). 


F. GRAF 


ATUM 

I. Atum, sun god and eldest of the 
Ennead of Heliopolis. occurs in the Bible in 
the place-name Pithom (Exod 1:11), Gk 
Tatovupoc, Eg Pr-/tm ‘House of Atum’. 
Recently, it has been suggested to explain 
the place-name Etam (Exod 13:20; Num 
33:6-8), the etymology of which H. CAZEL- 
LES was unable to determine with certainty 
(CAZELLES, Les localisations de l'Exode et 
la critique littéraire, RB 62 [1955] 321-364, 
357-359) as an abbreviated spelling of (Pr)- 
Itm ‘(House) of Atum’ (M. Gora, Etam und 
Pitom, BN 51 [1990] 9-10). K. Mv$uiwiEC 
(Zur Ikonographie des Gottes “HPQN 
(StAeg 3; 1977] 89-97) connects the Greek 
name with "Hpov (Heron), a god who is 
related to Atum (Heron-Atum). It is highly 
probable that Pithom/Heroopolis can be 
identified with Tell el-Maskhutah at the cast 
end of the Wadi Tumilat, where a temple of 
Atum has been found (A. B. LLovp, Hero- 
dotus Book Il, Commentary 99-182 |EPRO 
43; Leiden 1988] 154-155). According to 
BLEIBERG (1983) the evidence for ident- 
ifying Pithom with Heroopolis is incon- 
clusive. 

The name Atum is generally interpreted 
as a derivation from the Egyptian stem tm 


which can mean ‘not to be’ as well as ‘to 
be complete’ (BERGMAN 1970:51-54; Mys- 
LtWiEC 1979:78-83). In religious language, 
the different aspects of a god are often 
reflected in his name. Using theological 
puns, the Egyptians associated the name 
Atum with the complicated divine nature of 
the god who created the world by devel- 
oping the potencies of his primordial unity 
into the plurality of the well-ordered cos- 
mos. Though in the Hebrew Bible the god 
Atum occurs only as an element in topo- 
nyms, his role as a creator god bears some 
remarkable similarities to that of --Yahweh 
in biblical thought. 

II. Atum was a highly speculative god 
(BarTA 1973:80-81), whose divine being 
was claborated by the theologians in a cos- 
mogonical doctrine. According to this doc- 
trine, in the beginning there was the Nun, an 
abyss with neither light nor limits. The Nun 
represented the undifferentiated unity of the 
precreation state which the Egyptians con- 
ceived of as non-being. The Nun was the 
primary substance, the sum of virtualities, 
from which all life emerged. Nun is termed 
the Eldest One and the father of the gods 
(CT V1 343,-344.g). Still Atum was not a 
younger and thus secondary god. He was 
coexistent and consubstantial with the 
-— Chaos (J. ASSMANN, Zeit und Ewigkeit im 
alten Ägypten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte 
der Ewigkeit [AHAW 1; Heidelberg 1975) 
21). Atum was a god who had no father and 
no mother. He was mysterious as to his 
birth, because he was unbegotten and came 
into being by spontaneous self-generation 
(DE Buck 1947; cf. the self-produced 
{avtoyovoc] and unbegotten [dyévvntog] 
god of the Corpus Hermeticum: F. DAUMAS, 
Le fonds égyptien de l'hermétisme, Gnosti- 
cisme et monde hellénistique. Actes du Col- 
loque de Louvain-la-Neuve 11-14 mai 1980 
[Louvain-la-Neuve 1982] 3-25, esp. 19-20). 
The god owed his powerful creative force to 
nothing outside himself. He was the causa 
sui. Paradoxically, Atum and Nun were both 
absolute gods and they both could claim the 
priority which is a characteristic of a creator 
god (J. ZANDEE, De Hymnen aan Amon van 


119 


ATUM 


papyrus Leiden 1 350, OMRO 28 [1947] 66- 
75, 112-120). 

Before creation, Atum was entirely alone 
in the Nun. According to Egyptian concep- 
tions, the solitude of a god points to his pri- 
macy as a creator god (ASSMANN 1979:23- 
24). Atum was the primordial god who was 
regarded as already existing when nothing 
as yet existed (GRAPOw 1931:34-38). The 
urge, however, to create was inherent to 
Atum's nature. Being a creator god, Atum 
was in fact the creative will, the causa 
efficiens, which performed the transition 
from pre-existence to existence. In the older 
Heliopolitan version (S. SAUNERON & J. 
YovorrE, La naissance du monde selon 
l'Egypte ancienne, La naissance du monde 
[SO 1; Paris 1959] 17-91, esp. 46), the ac- 
tual creative act is explained in terms of 
sexual appetite as the inclination towards 
Being (ASSMANN 1969:203-204, with ref- 
erences; cf. the Orphic cosmogonical Eros 
and -*Zeus, who turned into Eros when 
about to create). Being alone in the Nun, the 
god had no female partner with whom to 
produce offspring. In a manner characteristic 
of a creator god, Atum was a unity embra- 
cing both masculine and feminine elements 
(S. SaAUNERON, Remarques de philologie ct 
d'étymologie (en marge des textes d'Esna), 
Mélanges Mariette [IFAO 32; Cairo 1961] 
229-249 § “Le Créateur androgyne”). Plural- 
ity is immanent in the primordial nature of 
Atum. In the same manner, creator god- 
desses like -*Isis and —Neith were mascu- 
line for 2/3 in their nature and feminine for 
1/3 (ibid. 244). Atum was man-woman, 'He- 
She’ (Eg pn tn: CT H 161.a; cf. the dichot- 
omic creator god in Gnosticism and the 
Neo-Platonic Corpus Hermeticum: P. LABIB, 
Egyptian Survivals in the Nag Hammadi 
Library, Nag Hammadi and Gnosis. Papers 
read at the First International Congress of 
Coptology, Cairo, December 1976 (NHS 14; 
Leiden 1978) 149-151; W. Scott, Hermeti- 
ca III [Boston 1985] 135; Gen 1:1: Elohim 
created the world without a consort). The 
actus purus then is described as an act of 
masturbation. The god masturbated, swal- 
lowed his seed and gave birth to his son Shu 


by spitting him out and to his daughter 
Tefnut by vomiting her forth (Pyr. 1248.a-d; 
CT | 345.c, II 18.a-b; cf. NHC V 81.17-18; 
Philo of Alexandria, Ebr. 30: the creation of 
the visible world is the result of an act of 
begetting). In the Books of the Underworld 
(HORNUNG 1984:372, 438), ithyphallic crea- 
tures are often depicted as creative forces. 
Apis, bull-god of fertility, is associated 
with Atum. Atum was the great masturbator 
(Eg iw.s ‘.s) of Heliopolis who begot by 
using his fist and brought forth by his mouth 
which functioned as a womb (J. ZANDEE, 
Sargtexte, Spruch 77 (CT II, 18), ZAS 100 
[1973] 71-72). In texts dating to the 
Ptolemaic period, the goddess -*Hathor had 
been introduced as the hypostasis of the 
god’s sexual desire, whereas Jusaas (Eg iw.s 
“s, ‘as she comes she grows (?)', a pun) 
had become the hypostasis of the acting 
hand (DERCHAIN 1972). It has been sug- 
gested that the Heliopolitan conception of 
creation resulting from masturbation found 
expression in the ithyphallic demiurge Bes 
Pantheos and in the name Adoil ydw?l, 'His- 
hand-is-god’, in 2 Enoch (Religions en 
Egypte hellénistique et romaine. Colloque 
de Strasbourg 16-18 mai 1967 [Paris 1969] 
31-34). It has also been supposed to be 
reflected in the rays of Aton ending in small 
hands reaching out to the King and the 
Queen in their role of Shu and Tefnut (K. 
MvsLiwiEC, Amon, Atum and Aton: The 
Evolution of Heliopolitan Influences in 
Thebes, L'Egyptologie en 1979. Axes priori- 
taires de recherches [Colloques internatio- 
naux du C.N.R.S. 595; Paris 1982] 285- 
289). Tefnut was regarded as the hand of 
god (H. Brunner, LdA 3 [1980] 217-218). 

Atum performed the creation on the Pri- 
mordial Hill, a cosmic place, which was 
identified with the god (BARTA 1973:82) and 
later to be surmounted by the temple of 
Heliopolis. The god alighted at dawn on the 
Hill in the shape of the Bennu, a bird whose 
name could be a play upon the name bnbn 
of the Primordial Hill, on whn ‘to rise (of 
the sun)’ and perhaps on bnn ‘to beger 
(ASSMANN 1969:203). It has been pointed 
out that the Bennu is often depicted on a 


120 


ATUM 


standard. (V. NorrER, Biblischer Schóp- 
Jungsbericht [SBS 68; Stuttgart. 1974] 47) 
which was symbolic of victory over Chaos 
(ASSMANN 1969:195-196). The hierophany 
of the god drove off Chaos and called the 
well-ordered Cosmos into being. Atum was 
also said to have ascended from the chaos- 
waters with the appearance of a snake, the 
animal renewing itself every morning (BD 
87). Chaos, however, was considered to be 
still immanent in the Cosmos (DERCHAIN 
1962:177-178; H. HOoRNUNG, Chaotische 
Bereiche in der geordneten Welt, ZÁS 81 
[1956] 28-32). At the creation, Atum revers- 
ed his nature of non-being and for this rea- 
son Chaos and Cosmos differred, not in con- 
tents, but in their organization. Creation is 
organised Chaos (DERCHAIN 1962:183). In 
the famous eschatological text BD 175 (J. 
ASSMANN, Zeit und Ewigkeit [AHAW:; 
1975] 24-26, with references to similar 
texts), which was still current in the Graeco- 
Roman period (E. Orro, Zwei Paralleltexte 
zu TB 175, CdE 37 (1962] 249-256), Atum 
tells of his decision to annihilate the world 
he created, restoring it to its original state of 
Chaos (S. Scuorr, Altügyptische Vorstel- 
lungen vom Weltende, Studia biblica et 
orientalia, 1l: Oriens antiquus [AnBib 12; 
Roma 1959] 319-330). Atum was the god of 
pre-existence and post-existence (ASSMANN 
1979:23). The demiurge, who encompassed 
being and non-being as coincidentia oppos- 
itorum, causes both creation and annihilation 
(cf. Deut 32:39: “I destroy and I heal"). 
Only -*Osiris was to remain as the Lord of 
Etemity together with Atum after the god 
had turned himself into his primordial form 
of a snake, symbol of time and eternity (L. 
KAkosy, Osiris - Aion, OrAnt 3 [1964] 15- 
25, 20-21, with references). In the Book of 
the Underworld Amduat (Sth hour; see 
HORNUNG 1984:102-103, bottom register), 
the eschatological snake seems to be de- 
picted in the cave of Sokaris containing the 
Chaotic powers of the Underworld. In the 
Llith hour of Amduat (HORNUNG 1984:174- 
175, upper register), Atum has taken on his 
human shape after the Chaotic powers had 
been defeated. To gain immortality, the 


deceased (= Osiris) is equated with Atum 
(BERGMAN 1970:53-54). A bronze statuette 
of Atum shows the god with the attributes 
of Osiris (J. BAINES, A bronze statuette of 
Atum, JEA 56 [1970] 135-140). In BD 87, 
the deceased wishes to tum into the shape of 
the snake Sato (Eg s? 5, ‘son of the 
-*earth'), the embodiment of Atum (M.-T. 
DERCHAIN-URTEL, Die Schlange des “Schiff- 
briichigen” (SAK 1; 1974] 83-104, 90-92). 
Atum represents life after death (CT 
V.291.k). Atum and Osiris are often paired 
on stelae (K. MYv$rrwiEc, Beziehungen 
zwischen Atum und Osiris nach dem Mitt- 
leren Reich, MDAIK 35 [1979] 195-213) 
and at the Judgment of the -Dead Atum 
acts in favour of the deceased (R. GRIES- 
HAMMER, Das Jenseitsgericht in den Sarg- 
texten [ÄA 20; Wiesbaden 1970] 76-77). 
Atum did not create from a primary sub- 
stance but the god emanated, thus producing 
Shu, the air-god and his twin sister Tefnut 
(moisture?). Creation begins with the transi- 
tion from unity to duality (B. STRICKER, 
Tijd, OMRO Supplement 64 [1983] 42-82, 
64 n. 222: BERGMAN 1970:59-61). Shu and 
Tefnut became the parents of Geb, the earth, 
and his sister and wife Nut, the sky. Cre- 
ation was a theogony and a cosmogony at 
the same time. The theologians incorporated 
the gods Isis, Osiris, Seth and Nephthys, 
who reflected the social and political condi- 
tio humana, into the cosmogony. The gods 
constituted the Great Ennead of Heliopolis, 
i.e. the epiphany or Pleroma of Atum, who 
was called the creator of the gods 
(MyStiwiec 1979:171-172) and the Great 
Bull of the Ennead, referring to his priority 
as a creator god. Atum is the god of many 
descendants (RYHINER 1977:132 n. 39). The 
Ennead was in fact the genealogical tree of 
the Pharaoh (BarTA 1973:41-48), headed by 
Atum and at the bottom Horus, the god 
connected with historical times (ASSMANN 
1984:144-148). Pharaoh was of cosmic 
dimensions and of primeval birth (L. KAKo- 
sy, The primordial birth of the king [StAeg 
3; Budapest 1977] 67-73). He was crowned 
by Atum (ARE 2 [1906] 89-90, 92), his 
father (BARTA 1973:162), who once niled 


121 


ATUM 


the earth but was said to be weary of his 
reign (Book of the Divine Cow: E. Hor- 
NUNG, Der dgyptische Mythos von der Him- 
melskuh, Eine Atiologie des Unvollkomme- 
nen [OBO 46; Freiburg, Göttingen 1982)). 
In his human shape, Atum is depicted 
wearing a bull’s tail and the double crown, 
symbols of royalty (MySLiwiec 1979:197, 
213-227). As the god’s representative on 
earth (R. ANTHES, Der Kónig als Atum in 
den Pyramidentexten, ZÁS 110 [1983] 1-9), 
Pharaoh mediates between gods and men, 
thus maintaining the cosmic harmony 
(ASSMANN 1979:21, with references). 

According to the Shu-spells C7 [ 314-II 
45 (R. FAULKNER, Some notes on the god 
Shu, JEOL 18 (1964] 266-270), Shu was not 
generated through an act of self-begetting 
but Atum created him in his mind and ex- 
haled him through his nostrils together with 
his sister Tefnut. The god embraced his 
children, thus guaranteeing the continuity of 
divine life and of the cosmic harmony which 
resulted from the god's creative act 
(ASSMANN 1969:103-105; MySLIwiEc 1978: 
17). The name Shu is derived from Eg $wj 
‘to be empty’ and Eg Sw ‘air’, ‘light’ 
(BERGMAN 1970:54-55, with references). 
The god separated the sky and the earth 
(H. TE VELDE, The theme of the separation 
of heaven and earth, StAeg 3 [1977] 161- 
170), thus creating the cosmic space to be 
filled with the god's divine parousia. In fact, 
Shu was a second creator god, who sus- 
tained the world with life-giving air. Shu 
was created from the breath of Atum (e.g. 
CT 1.338b, 345.b-c, 372b-374b). At the 
creation, Atum appeared from the chaos- 
waters as the Bennu, a bird connected with 
air and for this reason often compared with 
the breath of Elohim moving over the waters 
(V. Notter, Biblischer Schépfungsbericht 
[SBS 68, Stuttgart 1974] 46-54). Atum ini- 
tiated the creation but he remained outside 
the created world with which he was con- 
nected through his son Shu (ASSMANN 
1979:24-25). His hypostases, Shu and Tef- 
nut, were the cosmic principles of life itself 
rather than constellative gods dominating a 
specific department (AsSMANN 1984:209- 
215). 


Shu and Tefnut had been with their father 
in a spiritual state (CT 80). They were of 
one being (Op00vo10¢) with Atum, thus 
making a trinitarian unity (DE BUCK 1947; 
S. MonENZ, Agyptische Religion [RdM 8: 
Stuttgart 1970] 272-273, with references to 
Christian views on Trinity). Conceptually, 
the world existed before the actual creation. 
Creation by means of the divine Spirit and 
Word is considered to be a genuine Helio- 
politan conception by some scholars, but 
according to others it has been taken from 
the Memphite cosmogonical myth (J. ZAN- 
DEE, Hymnical Sayings addressed to the 
Sun god by the High-priest of Amun 
Nebwenenef, from his tomb in Thebes, 
JEOL 18 (1964) 253-265). D. MULLER (Die 
Zeugung durch das Herz, Or 35 [1966] 256- 
274) has shown that creation by means of 
masturbation is inseparably linked to the 
god’s heart or creative Spirit. At the cre- 
ation, Atum mentioned the names of the pri- 
mordial gods (CT II 7c-8a). Hu, the creative 
Word, and Sia, Intelligence, are the first- 
born children of >Re-Atum (BD 17, CT IV 
227b-230b). They assisted at the creation 
and made life possible (ASSMANN 1969; 
145). Atum created the world with his heart 
and his tongue (= Spirit and Word, ZANDEE 
1964); cf. the role of pre-existential -Wis- 
dom (sophia/hokmâ) and Word (-*logos/ 
dábàr) in e.g. Gen 1:1, Ps 33:6, 4 Ezra 6:38, 
John 1:1, Sir 1:1-4, 24:1-9. 

The unique and single creative act by 
means of the Divine Word is opposed to the 
principle of cyclic creation. In the solar 
cycle, Atum usually represents the aging sun 
god, the Old One, to whom the solar Night- 
Bark was assigned (MySLIwiEc 1979:163- 
164). Atum is also regarded as the ->moon, 
the sun's substitute at night (P. DERCHAIN, 
Mythes et dieux lunaires en Egypte, La lune, 
mythes et rites [SO 5; Paris 1962] 17-68). A 
bronze statuette shows Atum having the 
features of an old man (J. BAINES, A bronze 
statuette of Atum, JEA 56 [1970] 135-140; 
Baines, Further remarks on statuettes of 
Atum, JEA 58 [1972] 303-306). In trigrams 
representing the three phases of the sun god 
(Khepri-Re-Atum), the god is symbolised by 
the hieroglyph of an old man leaning on a 


122 


ATUM 


staff (RYHINER 1977:125-137). In the binary 
solar cycle, Atum is opposed to Khepri, the 
young sun god, whose name is derived from 
Eg lipr ‘to become’ (J. ASSMANN, Chepre, 
LdA 1 [1975] 934-940). Khepri-Atum en- 
compassed the sunrise and the sunset, thus 
reflecting the entire solar cycle. In the Book 
of the Earth (HoRNUNG 1984:430, 444), 
Khepri and Atum represent the Beginning 
and the End. In the context of PGM VII 
515-524, the vox magica AQ ‘the First One 
and the Last One’ could be interpreted as 
the composite Khepri-Atum (J. BERGMAN, 
Ancient Egyptian Theogony [Numen 
supplement 43; Leiden 1982] 36; cf. Rev 
21:6: “I am AQ, the Beginning and the 
End"). The sun-disc is often depicted con- 
taining Khepri and the ram-headed sun god 
(= Atum: MySiiwiec 1978:39-68). At the 
sunset as well as during the journey through 
the Underworld, Atum is regarded as the 
Living One (ASSMANN 1969:142-143). The 
entrance of the god at night into the body of 
Nut is equated with sexual union. Atum 
becomes the Kamutef ‘Bull of his Mother’, 
begetter of his own mother (CT I 237b, II 
60c; BARTA 1973:150), who at dawn gives 
birth to Atum as the young sun calf 
(Mv$tiwiEC 1978:38) or as a beautiful lad. 
The god is Puer-Senex, thus showing the 
features of the pantheistic sun god (RYHINER 
1977:137; cf. E. JuNop, Polymorphie du 
dieu sauveur, Gnosticisme et monde hel- 
lénistique. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la- 
Neuve 11-14 mai 1980 [Louvain-la-Ncuve 
1982] 38-46). At night the god received his 
own eye (= sun-disc), vehicle of the young 
sun god and agent of renewal, and protected 
it during the journcy through the Under- 
world (AsSMANN 1969:50-51). The god 
defcated the enemies of the sun, thus restor- 
ing harmony and entering into the role of 
Horus (HORNUNG 1984:206, with n. 14). As 
destroyer of enemies Atum can take on the 
shape of an ichneumon (E. BRUNNER- 
Traut, Ichneumon, LdA 3 (1980] 122-123) 
or he is represented as an arrow-shooting 
monkey (E. BRUNNER-TRAUT, Atum als 
Bogenschiitze, MDAIK 14 [1956] 20-28). 
Atum is the father of the two horizontal 
lions, Shu and Tefnut, who assisted as mid- 


wives (Pyr. 1443a) at the birth of Re- 
Harakhte, the sun god (My$LIwiEc 1978:69- 
74). Atum, Shu and Tefnut are also repre- 
sented in the shape of a sphinx (G. FECHT, 
Amama-Probleme, ZAS 85 [1960] 83-118, 
117; MySiiwrec 1978:12-27). 
III. Bibliography 

J. ASSMANN, Liturgische Lieder an den 
Sonnengott (MAS 19; Berlin 1969); 
ASSMANN, Primat und Transzendenz. Struk- 
tur und Genese der ägyptischen Vorstellung 
eines “Höchsten Wesens”, Aspekte der 
spätägyptischen Religion (ed. W. Westen- 
dorf; GOF IV,9; Wiesbaden 1979) 7-42; 
ASSMANN, Ägypten. Theologie und Frém- 
migkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Stuttgan, 
Berlin, Köln, Mainz 1984) 144-149, 209- 
215; W. BARTA, Untersuchungen zum Göt- 
terkreis der Neunheit (MAS 28; 1973); J. 
BERGMAN, Mystische Anklünge in den alt- 
ägyptischen Vorstellungen von Gott und 
Welt, Mysticism. Based on Papers read at 
the Symposium on Mysticism held at Abo on 
the 7th-9th September 1968 (eds. S. Hart- 
man & C.-M. Erdsman; Stockholm 1970) 
47-76; E. L. BLEiBERG, The Location of 
Pithom and Succoth, The Ancient World, 
Egyptological Miscellanies, vol. VI (1983) 
21-27 nos. 1-4; H. BONNET, Atum, RARG 
71-74; A. DE Buck, Plaats en betekenis van 
Sjoe in de Egyptische theologie (Amsterdam 
1947); P. DERCHAIN, L’étre et le néant 
selon la philosophie égyptienne, Dialoog. 
Tijdschrift voor wijsbegeerte 2 (1962) 171- 
189; Dercnain, Hathor Quadrifrons. 
Recherches sur la syntaxe d'un mythe égyp- 
tien (Istanbul 1972); E. HoRNUNG, Ágyp- 
tische Untenseltsbiicher, eingeleitet, über- 
setzt und erläutert (Zürich, Munich 1984); 
L. Kaxosy, Atum, LdA 1 (1975) 550-552; 
K. MySziwiec, Studien zum Gott Anon, I: 
Die heiligen Tiere des Atum (Hildesheimer 
Agyptologische Beiträge 5; Hildesheim 
1978); MYŚLIWIEC, Studien zum Gott Atum, 
ll: Name, Epitheta, Ikonographie (Hildes- 
heimer Agyptologische Beiträge 8; Hildes- 
heim 1979); M.-L. RYHINER, A propos de 
trigrammes panthéistes, REg 29 (1977) 125- 
137; J. ZANDEE, Das Schópferwort im alten 
Agypten, Verbum. Essays on Some Aspects 
of the Religious Function of Words Dedi- 


123 


AUGUSTUS — AUTHORITIES 


cated to Dr. H. W. Obbink (Utrecht 1964) 
33-66. 


R. L. Vos 


AUGUSTUS -> RULER CULT 


AUTHORITIES ££ovciat 

I. The plural ‘authorities’ (exousiai) 
functions, strictly speaking, not as a name 
but as a cultic epithet denoting celestial 
forces (see GrtApicow 1981:1217-1221, 
1226-1231). The term is derived from Gk 
éEovoia and corresponds to the verb 
&5eottv ('have permission, possibility, auth- 
ority’). The designation then refers to those 
who have been given authority, the bearers 
of authority. Characteristically, in the NT 
(e.g. Eph 3:10, 6:12; Col 1:16; 1 Pet 3:22) 
the plural form of the term always occurs 
together with similar notions in liturgical 
formulae. 

II. There are no antecedents for the NT 
usage of exousiai in the LXX or other pre- 
Christian Hellenistic texts. However, its ori- 
gin must be sought in apocalyptic (see / 
Enoch 61:10; 2 Enoch 20:1 (J); Ass. Isa. 
1:4; T. Levi 3:8; cf. 1 Enoch 9:5 (Gk); T. 
Levi 18:12; Apoc. Bar. (Gk) 12:3; T. Abr. 
9:8; 13:11; T. Sol. 1:1; 15:11; 18:3; 22:15, 
20; titulus B I [p. *98 ed. McCown]), in 
magic (see PGM 1.215-216; IV.1193-1194; 
XII.147; XVILa.5), and perhaps in Gnostic- 
ism (see Corp. Herm. 1.13, 14, 15, 28, 32; 
XVI.14; Frg. XXIII [Kore Kosmou) SS, 58, 
63). Thus, the linguistic evidence is am- 
biguous with regard to any specific origin of 
the usage. Precise Hebrew or Aramaic 
equivalents or antecedents are missing (cf. 
Su-B 3.581-3.584; MicHL 1965:79-80); in 
Latin translations the word potestas is used. 

III. In the NT the epithet is always found 
in christological formulae of a hymnic na- 
ture. | Cor 15:24 speaks of the eschatol- 
ogical destruction of all celestial entities 
(arché, exousia, dynamis) as part of the 
completion of the kingdom of God. These 
entities can also be categorized as ‘the celes- 
tials’ (fa epourania) located in the middle 
ranges of the cosmos (Phil 2:10; Eph 1:3. 


20-21; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). —Christ's victory 
over them implies that these forces were 
regarded as evil prior to their defeat and 
subjugation by Christ, in whose service they 
continue henceforth. This change is the rea- 
son for the hymnic praises in Col 1:16; 
2:15; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12. As the lists of 
celestial beings indicate, they are many in 
number and include —archai, exousiai (Auth- 
orities), Kosmokratores (World Rulers), 
pneumatika tés ponérias (Evil Spirits; Eph 
6:12). Presumably, they possess their auth- 
ority from primordial times when the creator 
bestowed it upon them; but, since they be- 
came evil and demonic, the redeemer had to 
subdue them. This happened after his resur- 
rection when Christ ascended into -*heaven 
and took his place at the right side of God 
(1 Pet 3:22). Christ's enthronement may 
also be the reason why their names 
(onomata) were withheld. God so exalted 
Christ that he ‘gave him the ->name that is 
above every name' (Phil 1:9; cf. Eph 1:21: 
‘above every name that is named’). This 
implies that the demons lost their names as 
well as the power that goes with them. As a 
result, they are no longer to be invoked and 
worshipped. Rather, they themselves wors- 
hip Christ (Phil 2:10; Rev 5:11-14; etc.). 

IV. Use of thc designation continues in 
later Christian sources, especially in the 
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Acts Andr. 
6; Acts John 79; 98; 104; Acts Phil. 132; 
144; Acts Thom. 10:86; 133), and in Gnostic- 
ism (see Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. 
&5ovoia, sec. A.8-10; F; G; MicuL 1965: 
97-98; 112-114; SiEGERT 1982: 243). 

V. Bibliography 
C. E. ARNOLD. Ephesians: Power and 
Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians 
in Light of Its Historical Setting (SNTSMS 
63; Cambridge 1989) [& lit; BAGD, s.v. 
&5ovoia [& lit]; I. BRoER, €&ovoia, EWNT 
II (1981) 23-29 [& lit]; W. CARR, Angels 
and Principalities: The Background, Mean- 
ing and Development of the Pauline Phrase 
hai archai kai hai exousiai (SNTSMS 42; 
Cambridge 1974) [& lit]; C. Corre, J. 
MAIER, J. TER VRUGT-LENTZ, E. SCHWEI- 
ZER, A. KALLIS, P. G. VAN DER NAT & C. 


124 


AVENGER — AYA 


D. G. MULLER, Geister (Diimonen), RAC 9 
(1976) 546-796 [& lit]; W. FOERSTER, 
eEcativ, éEovoia xtA. especially sec. C.6, 
TWNT 2, 557-572: TWNT 10, 1080-1081 [& 
lit; B. GrADiGOW, Gottesnamen (Gottes- 
epitheta) I (allgemein, RAC 11 (1981) 
1202-1238; W. GRUNDMANN, Der Begriff 
der Kraft in der ueutestamentlichen  Ge- 
dankenwelt (BWANT 4:8; Stuttgart 1932); 
J. MICHL, Engel I-IX, RAC 5 (1965) 53-258; 
F. SieGERT, Nag-Hammadi-Register: Wór- 
terbuch zur Erfassung der Begriffe in den 
koptisch-gnostischen Schriften von Nag- 
Hammadi. (WUNT 26; Tiibingen 1982). 


H. D. Betz 


AVENGER “2; 

I. In Ps 57:3 the designation Elohim 
—Elyon occurs in parallelism with “the god 
who avenges me". DAHOOD took the expres- 
sion ?el gómér to be a reminiscence of a 
divine name Gomer El (1953). He translated 
the expression as ‘the Avenger El’ (1968: 
49). 

II. The root GMR is well attested in the 
Semitic languages (Ges!8 223). From the 
basic denotation ‘to come to an end, to bring 
to an end’, it has developed the secondary 
senses ‘to destroy’ (Phoen mgmr means 
'destruction') and ‘to avenge’ (in Ugaritic 
and Hebrew). Though the latter meaning is 
sometimes related to a separate root (GMR II) 
meaning ‘render good, protect’ (so M. 
TsEvAT, A Study of the Language of the 
Biblical Psalms (Philadelphia 1955] 80-81), 
it is not at odds with the notion of bringing 
to an end; compare the verb Sallém (pi‘el), 
"to pay (back)', from the root SLM, ‘to be 
complete’. 

Both in the Ugaritic and the Hebrew 
onomasticon the root GMR occurs in theo- 
phoric names. Ugaritic examples are the 
names Gamiraddu ('Adad is avenger') and 
Gimraddu ('Addu is my revenge’, for both 
names and similar ones see F. GRÖNDAHL, 
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit 
[StP 1; Rome 1967] 128; cf. P. D. Miller, 
The Divine Warrior in Early Israel [Cam- 
bridge, Mass. 1973] 41). As Hebrew counter- 


parts one might adduce Gemaryah (Isa 29:3) 
and Gemaryahu (Jer 36:10-12.25). Such 
names demonstrate that the participle 
gamiru (the one who avenges, avenger) 
could be used as a divine epithet. [t does not 
occur as an independent divine name, how- 
ever. Nor is it attested in the Ugaritic litera- 
ture in connection with El, so that Dahood’s 
hypothetical manifestation of the god El 
known under the name *Gamir-El remains 
without textual basis. 

HI. The phrase "I call upon Elohim- 
elyon, upon the god who avenges me" 
(egrà? le'lóhim *elyón la'el gómer ‘alay) in 
Ps 57:3 does not necd to contain an echo of 
the hypothetical divine name Gomer-El in 
order to make good sense. The principal 
reason to posit El-gomer or Gomer-E] as a 
traditional El manifestation is the parallel 
with Elohim-elyon (and more particularly so 
if the latter were to be corrected into El- 
elyon, Elyon) Yet the parallelism of the 
verse is not synonymous but synthetical (W. 
BOHLMANN & K. ScHERER, Stilfiguren der 
Bibel |Fribourg 1973] 38): hence the article 
before "él, serving here as a relativum. 

IV. Bibliography 
A. Cooper, Divine Names and Epithets in 
the Ugaritic Texts, RSP III (AnOr 51; Rome 
1981) 444-445; M. DaHoop, The Root GMR 
in the Psalms, Theological Studies 14 
(1953), 595-597; Danoop, Psalms 1I: 51- 
100 (AB 17; Garden City 1968) 49-55. 


K. VAN DER TOORN 


AYA 

I. Aya was the name of a syncrctistic 
deity in Ugarit, equated with the Mes- 
opotamian deities Aya and Ea. The name is 
of unknown etymology. ROBERTS (1972: 20- 
21) argued for a original spelling 'ay(yJa 
deriving from an original root *nvv "to 
live" and related it to the adjective hayy(sen) 
"alive" in Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic. In the 
OT Aya occurs several times (e. g. Gen 
36:24; 2 Sam 3:7; | Chr 7:28) as a proper 
name. [t is regarded by some authors as a 
hypocoristic form to be connected with the 
Ugaritic deity. 


125 


AYA 


II. Aya is mentioned in the trilingual 
Ugaritic god-list RS 20.123+ (J. NouGay- 
ROL, Ug 5 [1968] 248:32): dA-A: e-ia-an: 
ku-šar-ru. The logographic writing SA-A is 
used in Mesopotamia to denote the goddess 
Aya, the spouse of the sun-god Shamash 
(>Shemesh). She was worshipped together 
with him in Sippar, Larsa and perhaps also 
in Babylon. Like Shamash she was a deity 
of light sharing several aspects with -*Ish- 
tar too. The Babylonians worshipped her as 
a young girl and called her kallatu “bride” 
and hirtu spouse“. Aya is attested already 
in Presargonic personal names (BOTTERO 
1953:32) and therefore one of the oldest 
Semitic deities known to us from Mesopot- 
amia. Her equivalent in the Sumerian pan- 
theon was named Shenirda or Sudaga (A. 
FALKENSTEIN, ZA 52 [1957] 305). An Edom- 
ite king by the name of Aya-rammu is men- 
tioned in Sennacherib's annals (D. LUCKEN- 
BILL, The Annals of Sennacherib [OIP 2; 
Chicago 1924] 30: ii 57). 

In the Ugaritic god-list Aya is preceeded 
by the Ugaritic Sun-Goddess Shapshu. This 
deity was female, and this change in gender 
might have been the reason for connecting 
the logographic writing of her companion 
(9A-A) with the almost homophonic Hurrian 
name (Eyan) of Ea, the Akkadian god of 
sweet waters and wisdom, and with his 
Ugaritic equivalent Kushara (Kir, -*Koshar). 

Ea too is known from Presargonic per- 
sonal names and belongs to the oldest Sem- 
itic pantheon in Mesopotamia (ROBERTS 
1972). In all probability he was originally a 
god of springs and wells, and was soon 
equated with Enki, the Sumerian god of 
- wisdom and skills, whose domain was the 
Abzu—the subterranean sweet-water ocean— 
and who was worshipped in the South-Mes- 
opotamian city of Eridu (modern Abu- 
Shahrain, -*Ends of the Earth). He 
combined knowledge and wisdom with thc 
cleansing and restorative powers of fresh- 
water. In Sumerian mythology, Enki is one 
of the creators and organizers of the uni- 
verse. Especially the creation of man is 
ascribed to him. Within Akkadian epic tradi- 
tion he increasingly assumed the role of a 


trickster, whose advice saved gods and 
humans alike from seemingly hopeless situ- 
ations. He was revered for instance, for 
saving the human race from total destruction 
by the deluge. As a patron deity of erudition 
and scholarship on the one hand, and incan- 
tations and purification rituals on the other, 
Ea became one of the supreme gods in the 
Mesopotamian pantheon. During the first 
millennium BCE most of his functions had 
already been transferred to his son 
-*Marduk, the city god of Babylon, but Ea 
remained the ultimate source of wisdom and 
deep insight throughout Mesopotamian his- 
tory. 

Ill. In the OT Aya is found several times 
as a personal name. In Gen 36:24 and 1 Chr 
1:40 as name of the cldest son of Zibeon 
and in 2 Sam 3:7; 21:8.10 and 11 as name 
of the father of Rizpah. Twice Aya is men- 
tioned as the name of a place in connection 
with —Bethel (1 Chr 7:28 and Neh 11:31). 
Several authors (GINSBERG & MAISLER, 
JPOS 14 [1934] 257; W. FEILER, ZA 45 
[1939] 219-220; J. BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon 
and Israel [Cambridge 1972] 126 n. 46) 
connected these names as_ hypocoristic 
forms with the Hurrian deity Aya. Other 
scholars regarded Aya as an animal name 
("hawk, kite") used as personal name (/PN 
230), or as interrogative pronoun "where 
is...?” (W. F. ALBRIGHT, JAOS 74 [1954] 
225-227). Most dictionaries distinguish 
between the personal names and the place 
name. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. BorrÉRo, Les divinités sémitiques an- 
ciennes en Mésopotamie, Le antiche divinità 
semitiche (StSem 1; Rome 1953) 17-63, esp. 
32-33 and 36-38; E. EBELING, A.A, RLA 1 
(1928) 1-2; EBELING, Enki, RLA 2 (1933) 
374-379; D. O. EDZARD, Aja; Enki, WbMyth 
1/1, 39, 56-57; H. D. GALTER, Der Gott 
Ea/Enki in der akkadischen Uberlieferung 
(Graz 1983) [& lit.; S. N. KRAMER & J. 
MAIER, Myths of Enki, The Crafty God 
(Oxford 1989) [& lit.]; E. LAROCHE. Le 
"panthéon" hourrite de Ras Shamra, Ug 5 
(1968) 518-527, esp. 525; J. J. M. ROBERTS, 
The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of 


126 


AYISH — AZABBIM 





the Semitic Deities attested in Mesopotamia 
before Ur III (Baltimore 1972) 19-21. 


H. D. GALTER 


AYISH —> ALDEBARAN 


AZABBIM C252 ‘Idols’ 

I. The plural noun ‘dsabbim, ‘idols’, is 
derived from the verb ‘dsab I, ‘form, 
fashion, shape’, which is attested in Job 
10:8: "Your hands fashioned and made me" 
(sce also Jer 44:19). The verb should not be 
confused with ‘dsab II ‘to be sad, sorrow- 
ful’. The singular of the noun ‘eseb meaning 
‘(clay) vessel, pot’ is attested in Jer 22:28: 
“Is this man Coniah a wretched broken pot, 
a vessel (kéli) no one wants? Why are he 
and his offspring hurled out, and cast away 
in a land they knew not?" 

IL. Attested 17 times in the Hebrew 
Bible, the plural noun ‘dsabbim ‘idols’ is 
especially characteristic of Hosea (4:17; 8:4; 
14:9), who uses this noun to refer to the 
golden calves at Dan and Bethel (13:2). In 
the view of Hosea as in that of the unnamed 
author of 1 Kgs 12:28-30 the veneration of 
these cultic appurtenances by the people of 
the Northern Kingdom (Samaria) was apos- 
tasy no less than the worship of other gods, 
who were commonly represented by 
anthropomorphic statues. 

Micah, speaking in the name of the 
Lorp, tells us that the ‘dsabbim, i.c., cultic 
appurtenances of Samaria, will be destroyed; 
not because of their inherent inappropriate- 
ness to the worship of Yahweh, but rather 
because of the moral depravity involved in 
their having been provided by the generous 
donations of prostitutes from the fees they 
received for services rendered (Mic 1:7; cf. 
Deut 23:19). 

From Pss 115:4 and 135:15 and their 
respective contexts we learn of a time, per- 
haps early in the Second Temple period, 
when Isracl’s neighbours taunted her for 
worshipping an unseen god while Israel in 
retum taunted her neighbours for wor- 
shipping anthropomorphic ‘“dsabbim, ‘idols’ 
fashioned by human hands from silver and 


gold: “They have mouths, but they cannot 
speak. They have eyes, but they cannot see. 
They have ears, but they cannot hear. They 
have noses, but they cannot smell. They 
have hands but they cannot touch, feet. but 
they cannot walk. They cannot make a 
sound with their throats” (Ps 115:5-7; cf. Ps 
135:15:17). 

III. The priesthoods of the ancient Near 
East distinguished between the cult statue 
fashioned by human hands and the divinity, 
which, it was believed, could be made to 
reside within—but not only within—the cult 
statue (DIETRICH & Lorerz 1992:20-37). 
However, many of the common people with 
whom Israelites came into contact did not 
always distinguish between the divinity and 
the cult statue. It should not be surprising, 
therefore, that especially in the heat of relig- 
ious polemic reflected in Pss 115 and 135, 
the Israelite polemicist should poke fun at 
this aspect of the popular religion of peoples 
of the ancient Near East. The master pol- 
emicist of ancient Israel, the so-called 
Deutero-lsaiah, relates that at the time of the 
capitulation of Babylon to Cyrus in the 
autumn of 539 BCE the images representing 
Bel (-^Marduk) and Nebo (Nabû) were 
piled as a burden upon tired beasts, who 
"cowered, they (like Bel and Nebo) bowed 
as well. They (i.e., thc beasts) could not res- 
cue the burden (viz., the ‘dsabbim), and they 
themselves went into captivity” (Isa 46:2). 
Apparently, Deutero-Isaiah bears witness 
here to the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jer 
$0:2: “Declare among the nations, and pro- 
claim: Raise a standard, proclaim; Hide 
nothing! Say: Babylon is captured. Bel is 
shamed. Marduk is dismayed. Her ‘dsabbim 
are shamed, her —gillflim are dismayed”. In 
the Jeremian context both terms for idols 
refer to the gods of Babylon while in 
Deutero-Isaiah the term ‘dsabbim retains its 
primary meaning and designates anthropo- 
morphic statues of gods. 

According to 2 Sam 5:21 the Philistine 
soldiers abandoned their ‘dsabbirn, i.e., cult 
statues, when they were defeated in the 
battle of Baal-perazim. The MT of 1 Sam 
31:9 refers to Philistine temples as "temples 


127 


AZAZEL 


of their ‘dsabbim” although the LXX reads 
"among their idols". The parallel passage in 
] Chr 10:9, which speaks of "spreading the 
bad news to their ‘dsabbim,” appears to 
reflect the Philistine point of view and uses 
‘dsabbim to refer to the deities represented 
by or embodied in the statues (SCHROER 
1987:317-320). 

According to Ps 106:36.38 the Israelites 
learned from their Canaanite neighbours to 
worship and offer sacrifices to the Canaanite 
‘asabbim. According to 2 Chr 24:17 the 
death of the virtuous Judean high priest 
Jehoiada was followed by many of the 
Judean nobility’s abandoning worship of the 
Lord in favour of the worship of ‘dsabbim. 
Zech. 13:2, however, looks forward to the 
eschatological time when “the very names 
of the ‘dsabbim” will be erased. 

Isaiah son of Amoz, speaking in the name 
of the Lorp, puts into the mouth of the 
Assyrian king (probably Sargon II) the rhe- 
torical question: “Shall I not do to Jerusalem 
and her *ágabbim what I did to Samaria and 
her gods (élilim)?” (Isa 10:11). Of course, 
Isaiah’s audience is meant to understand that 
Jerusalem does not rely upon ‘dsabbim but 
upon God. 

IV. Bibliography 
M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, “Jahwe und 
seine Aschera". Anthropomorphes Kultbild 
in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel (UBL 
9; Münster 1992); A. GRAUPNER, *'àsab. 
TWAT 6 (1987) 302-305 (& lit); S. Schroer, 
In Israel gab es Bilder. Nachrichten von 
darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament 
(OBO 74; Freiburg & Gottingen 1987). 


M. I. GRUBER 


AZAZEL CINID 

I. Both the etymology and the meaning 
of the name ‘aza’zél, which appears in the 
Old Testament only in Lev 16:8.10 
[twice].26, are not completely clear. Al- 
though the etymological hypothesis ‘zz < 
*‘zz’l < ‘zz (‘to be strong’) + 7! (‘god’), i.e. 
the result of a consonantal metathesis, ap- 
pears to be the most likely explanation 
(JANOWSKI & WILHELM 1993:128 with n. 


98. cf. the form ‘zz’! in 4Q 180, 1:8; 
11QTemple 26:13 etc., see Tawit 1980:58- 
59), the meaning of the name *z'z/ remains 
controversial. In the main the following 
possibilities are under discussion (cf. also 
HALAT 762): 1) ‘Azazel’ is the name or 
epithet of a demon. 2) ‘Azazel’ is a geo- 
graphical designation meaning ‘precipitous 
place’ or ‘rugged cliff (DRIVER 1956:97-98; 
cf. Tg. Ps.-J. Lev 16:10.22 etc.). 3) ‘Azazel’ 
is a combination of the terms ‘éz (‘goat’) + 
"ozél ('to go away, disappear’, cf. Arabic zl) 
and means ‘goat that goes (away)', cf. àxo- 
nmopnaios (Lev 16:8.10a LXX), anonopry 
(v 10b LXX), ó 6:£otaAuévog eig adeotv (v 
26) or caper emissarius (Lev 16:8.10a.26 Vg), 
English scapegoat, French bouc émissaire. 

In order to define the word as the name 
or epithet of a demon one could refer pri- 
marily to the textual evidence: according to 
Lev 16:8.10 a he-goat is chosen by lot ‘for 
Azazel’ in order to send it into the desert (v 
10.21) or into a remote region ‘for Azazel’. 
Since la‘aza’zél corresponds to lEYHWH (v 
8), ‘Azazel’ could also be understood as a 
personal name, behind which could be 
posited something such as a ‘supernatural 
being’ or a ‘demonic personality’. However, 
one should be cautious of too hasty an 
ascription. 

II. Various theses have been proposed in 
recent scholarly discussion concerning the 
identity of the figure of Azazel, as well as 
conceming the understanding of the Azazel 
rite (Lev 16:10.21-22). These can be clas- 
sified as the nomadic, the Egyptian and the 
South Anatolian-North Syrian models. 

The underlying assumption of the nomad- 
ic model is that the ‘scapegoat’ is not only 
chosen by lot ‘for Azazel’ (Lev 16:8.10, cf. 
mYom III:9-IV:2), but is also sent ‘to him’ 
into the desert or a remote region (Lev 
16:10.21-22, cf. 11QTemple 26:11-13; mYom 
VI:2-6). The result of this combination was 
the positing of a ‘desert demon’ Azazel. In 
other words, it was assumed that Azazel 
lived in the desert and was a demon. DUHM 
and others spoke of a 'Kakodümon der 
Wüste’, who was to be appeased through the 
offering of a he-goat (sa‘ir, DUHM 1904:56, 


128 


AZAZEL 


cf. Ges.!7 576; HALAT 762). This thesis is, 
however, to be viewed skeptically, since the 
goat chosen ‘for Azazel’ (v 8, the second 
goat is chosen ‘for YHWH’) is not sent ‘to’ 
Cel [or something similar]) Azazel but ‘for 
Azazel into the desen? — (lafázá?zel 
hammidbüárá). The central issue is the expla- 
nation of the expression ‘for (lë) Azazel’; 
the solution should lie in the original mean- 
ing of the ritual. 

Nevertheless the thesis of a ‘desen 
demon’ Azazel has found acceptance and 
has been advocated until the present day. 
Variations of this thesis have been proposed 
by L. Rost (Passover ritual in the spring and 
‘scapegoat’ ritual in the autumn as corre- 
sponding carly Israelite rituals) and recently 
by A. Strobel (the integration of a pre-Israel- 
ite [El-]ritual into the Palestinian calendar 
and into the celebration. of the Day of 
Atonement). In addition the original de- 
monic character of Azazel was always 
underlined by positing a connection between 
the goat (sá'fr) chosen for Azazel with the 
*séirim ('demons'; Isa 13:21; 34:14, cf. 
Lev 17:75; 2Chr 11:15), which naturally 
results in the image of a demon in goat form 
for the 'scapegoat'. Finally, since the time 
of Eissfeldt the ivory plaque from Megiddo 
(Loup, The Megiddo Ivories [OIP 52; Chi- 
cago 1939] P1.5,4.5) has been viewed as an 
iconographic proof of the demon hypothesis 
(for a critique see JaNowsk! & WILHELM 
1993:119-123). 

Recently an Egyptian explanation has 
been proposed, which bases itself on the 
Egyptian ‘d? ‘injustice; evil-doer, culprit’ 
and Egyptian dr ‘to expel’ or dr ‘to keep at 
a distance, remove’. According to this the- 
ory an original ritual of elimination has been 
enriched through the addition of the concept 
of a ‘scapegoat’-receiver in the form of a 
demon, who bears traits of the Egyptian god 
Seth, the classic ‘God of Confusion’. This 
relationship is expressed in his name. 
According to Górg the name ‘rzi < Eg. 
‘dsdrf (< ‘d? + dr/I) means ‘the expelled or 
removed culprit’ and is an expression of the 
interpretative model ‘the guilty one belongs 
there whence his guilt ultimately comes’ 


(GóRG 1986:13), namely from the (eastern) 
desert. This is where the Egyptian model 
comes into contact with the nomadic onc. 
This thesis is, however, inacceptable, since 
it neither accords with the perspective of 
Lev 16 nor is it supported by the adduced 
Egyptian comparative material. (JANOWSKI 
& WILHELM 1993:123-129). 

The third model is the South Anatolian- 
North Syrian one. It appears to be the most 
plausible one, both conceptually and philo- 
logically. It holds that the Azazel rite is a 
type of elimination rite (spatial removal [eli- 
minatio} of a physically understood pollu- 
tion through the agent of a living substitute), 
for which there are parallels both within 
(Lev 14:2b-8.48-53; Zech 5:5-11) and outs- 
ide the OT. The extra-biblical parallels point 
to an origin in the South Anatolian-North 
Syrian ritual tradition, whence this rite spre- 
ad on the one hand into the Palestinian-Isra- 
elite (‘scapegoat’ ritual, Lev 16) and on the 
other into the Ionian-Greek sphere (Phar- 
makos-rites in Kolophon, Abdera, Athens 
and Massalia/Marscille). Its home is to be 
found most probably in Southern Anatolia- 
Northem Syria, as has become increasingly 
evident in recent years. In support of this 
conjecture the relevant Hurrian material 
from Kizzuwatna as well as the Canaanite 
'scapegoat' ritual (KTU 1.127:29-31), which 
may form a missing link between the South 
Anatolian-North Syrian and the Palestinian- 
Israelite ritual traditions, can be adduced. 
How this transfer of ritual proceeded has not 
yet been worked out in detail. Just as 
questionable is whether there are analogies 
for the name and person of Azazel in Uga- 
rit; Lorerz (1985) postulates a ‘lesser 
divinity’ ‘zz’! analogous to Ugaritic ‘zb‘l 
(KTU 1.102:27). 

III. The decisive question in the interpre- 
tation of Lev 16:10.21-22 in the context (!) 
of Lev 16 is whether the figure of Azazel is 
original to the chapter or has 'developed' in 
connection with the composition/redaction 
of Lev 16. In order to answer this question, 
it is necessary to differentiate between the 
religious history of Lev 16:10.21-22 and the 
tradition/redaction history of Lev 16. 


129 


AZAZEL 


In its ritual-historical aspect the Azazel 
rite belongs to the oldest core of the ritual 
and represents a type of ritual (the elimin- 
ation rite), which is at home in South 
Anatolia-North Syria and is also known in 
Mesopotamia (WRIGHT 1987:31-74). The 
‘motif of the scapegoat’ in its various mani- 
festations is well attested particularly in the 
Hittite-Hurrian rituals from Kizzuwatna in 
southeast Anatolia (KÜMMEL 1968; JaANow- 
SKI & WiLHELM 1993:134-158). Various 
animals, such as cattle, sheep, goats, don- 
keys or mice, can be the bearers of the pol- 
lution which is magically eliminated by 
means of a living substitute. The term *z'z/ 
could be interpreted against the background 
of these Hurrian ritual traditions. JANOWSKI 
& WILHELM have proposed tying the term 
in with the Hurrian azus/zhi. The latter is 
known in the form azas/zhu(m) already in 
the Akkadian language oath ritual from 
north Syrian Alalah (A/T 126:17.24.28), and 
in the form azus/zhi it appears frequently in 
the great itkalzi-ritual in connection with 
sacrificial terms with negative connotations 
(e.g. arni 'sin' (« Akk arnu] etc.). The root 
can be assumed to be azaz- or azuz-, for 
which, however, only a Semitic etymology 
(root ‘ZZ < Akk ‘ezézw ‘be angry’, Heb 
*dzaz ‘be strong’, etc.) but no Hurrian one 
can be posited. Since the ‘anger of the 
divinity’ in this ritual tradition can be under- 
stood as an impurity which is ritually re- 
deemable, the expression /'zz| (« *l'zzl) 
could then be derived from an original 
definition of the elimination-rite, whose 
meaning one could then transcribe as 'for 
‘azavél = for [the elimination of] divine 
anger’ (for a critique see DIETRICH & 
LonErz 1993: 106-115). 

The question of the integration of the 
Anatolian-North Syrian material of the 
second millennium BCE and in particular of 
the expression *‘zz’l (> ‘z’z/) into the tradi- 
tion of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 
cannot be simply resolved. The following 
development, however, would appear to be 
possible: 

Azazel belongs to the oldest core of the 
ritual tradition of Lev 16. It is a part of the 


religious-magical conceptual world of North 
Syria, as becomes evident in the ritual tradi- 
tion borrowed from there (Alalah) and 
brought to Anatolia (Kizzuwatna). The 
Ugaritic religion possibly played the role of 
mediator in this process (sec esp. KTU 
1.127:29-31). At an early date the term 
azaz/azuz, also borrowed in this connection, 
would have been misunderstood (for a criti- 
que sec DiETRICH & LonEgrz 1993:115-116). 
In the attempt to understand the term, thc 
pattern of El-names used to describe demo- 
nic beings may have been influential, and 
may have determined the interpretation in 
the sense of a ‘desert demon’. The adaptive 
process took place in the context of the tra- 
dition formation of Lev 16, when one was 
able to view ‘Azazel’ as the name of a 
demon according to genuine Israelite inter- 
pretative presuppositions, i.e. from the per- 
spective of post-exilic monotheism. The 
integration of the figure named ‘Azazel’ into 
the tradition of Lev 16 was occasioned by 
the motive of the 'deserUsteppe' or the 
'remote region' (v 10.21-22) into which the 
goat is sent to remove the impurity. The 
concept of the 'desert demon' Azazel was 
born together with the desert motif. 

Characteristic of the final form of Lev 16 
is the symmetry of the two goats, the one 
for —Yahweh and the one for Azazel (v 8- 
10). The rituals tied in with them (the atone- 
ment rites v 11-19 and the elimination rite v 
10.21-22) are to be understood as comple- 
mentary acts, which have given the complex 
construction of Lev 16 its unmistakable 
form. 

IV. The Jewish and Christian history of 
interpretation of the figure of Azazel stands 
in no relationship to its laconic treatment in 
Lev 16. In the latter Azazel receives no 
sacrifices (the ‘scapegoat’ is no sacrificial 
animal), nor are any (demonic) actions 
ascribed to him. The eliminatory function of 
the Azazel-rite stands in the foreground. 

The process of the demonization of 
Azazel was intensively pursued in early 
Judaism under the influence of dualistic ten- 
dencies (J Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4-8; 13:1; cf. 
54:5-6; 55: 4; 69:2; Apoc. Abr. 13:6-14; 


130 


AZAZEL 


14:4-6 etc.; see HANSON 1977:220-223; 
NICKELSBURG 1977:357-404; GRABBE 1987: 
153-155; JSHRZ V/6 [1984] 520-521). 
Azazel taught human beings the art of work- 
ing metal (7 Enoch 8:1), enticed them to 
injustice and revealed to them the primordial 
divine secrets (7 Enoch 9:6; cf. 69:2). As an 
unclean bird he is the personification of 
ungodliness (Apoc. Abr. 13:7; 23:9) and the 
lord of the heathens (Apoc. Abr. 22:6). As a 
serpentine creature he tempted Adam and 
Eve in paradise (Apoc. Abr. 23:5.9); the 
Messiah will judge him with his cohorts (/ 
Enoch 55:4, cf. 54:5 and RAC 5 [1962] 
206f). In rabbinic Judaism the name is only 
rarely to be found (RAC 9 [1976] 684). 
V. Bibliography 

M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Der biblische 
Azazel und AIT *126, UF 25 (1993) 99-117; 
G. R. Driver, Three Technical Terms in the 
Pentateuch, JSS 1 (1956) 97-105, esp. 97- 
100; H. Dunm, Die bösen Geister im Alten 
Testament (Tübingen & Leipzig 1904); *M. 
GörG, Beobachtungen zum sogenannten 
Azazel-Ritus, BN 33 (1986) 10-16; GÖRG, 
Asasel, NBL 1 (1991) 181-182; GÖRG, “Asa- 
selologen" unter sich — cine enge Runde?, 
BN 80 (1995) 25-31; L. L. GRaBBE, The 
Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Inter- 
pretation, JSJ 18 (1987) 152-167; P. D. 
HANSON, Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and 
Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11, JBL 
96 (1977) 195-233; *B. JaNowskKi & G. 


Der Bock, der die Sünden 
hinaustrágt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des 
Azazel-Ritus Lev 16,10.21f. Religionsge- 
schichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleina- 
sien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament 
(OBO 129: Fribourg & Göttingen 1993) 
109-169 [& lit.]; H. M. KÜMMEL, Ersatzkó- 
nig und Sündenbock, ZAW 80 (1968) 289- 
318; *O. LonETZ, Leberschau, Siindenbock, 
Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. Leberschau und 
Jahwestatue in Ps 27, Leberschau in Ps 74 
(UBL 3; Altenberge 1985) 35-57; J. MiLGR- 
OM, Leviticus I-I6 (AB 3; New York etc. 
1991) 1071-1079; G. W. E. NICKELSBURG, 
Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11, JBL 
96 (1977) 383-405; S. M. OLYAN, A Thou- 
sand Thousands Served Him. Exegesis and 
the Naming of Angels in Ancient Judaism 
(TSAJ 36; Tübingen 1993); A. STROBEL, 
Das  jerusalemische Sündenbock-Ritual. 
Topographische und landeskundliche Erwi- 
gungen zur Überlicferungsgeschichte von 
Lev 16,10.21f., ZDPV 103 (1987) 141-168; 
H. TAwiL, Azazel. The Prince of the Steppe: 
A Comparative Study, ZAW 92 (1980) 
43-59; D. P. WRIGHT, The Disposal of 
the Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible 
and in Hittite and Mesopotamian 
Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta 1987) 15- 
74; *WRIGHT, Azazel, ABD 1 (1992) 536- 
537. 


WILHELM, 


B. JANOWSKI 


131 


BAAL 553 

I. The name ba'al is a common Semitic 
noun meaning 'lord, owner'. Applied to a 
god it occurs about 90 times in the OT. The 
LXX transcribes Baad, Vulgate Baal, plural 
BaaAii and Baalim. Though normally an 
appellative, the name is used in Ugaritic 
religion as the proper name of a deity. Also 
in the Bible, the noun occurs as the name of 
a specific Canaanite god. 

II. According to Pettinato the noun ba‘al 
was originally used as a divine name. It is 
attested as such already in third millennium 
texts. The mention of d5a,-al, in the list of 
deities from Abu Salabikh (R. D. BiGGs, 
Inscription from Abu Salabikh [OIP 99; 
Chicago 1974) no. 83 v 11 = no. 84 obv. iii 
8°) provides the oldest evidence of Baal's 
worship. Since the Abu Salabikh god list 
mentions the god amidst a wealth of other 
deities, each of them referred to by its 
proper name, it is unlikely that ba‘al should 
serve here as an adjective. The appellative 
‘lord’, moreover, has a different spelling, 
viz. be-lu or ba-ah-lu. In texts from Ebla 
(ca. 2400 BCE) the name Baal occurs only as 
an element in personal names and top- 
onyms. 

PETTINATO (1980) makes a case for Baal 
being an originally Canaanite deity (so also 
DaHoop 1958:94; Pope & ROLLIG 1965: 
253-254; vAN ZuL 1972:325), and argues 
that he should be distinguished from 
-*Hadad. Their identity is nevertheless often 
emphasized in modem studies. Many 
scholars hold that Hadad was the real name 
of the West Semitic weather god; later on he 
was simply referred to as ‘Lord’, just like 
Bel (‘lord’) came to be used as a designa- 
tion for Marduk (so e. g. O. EISSFELDT, 
Baal/Baalat, RGG 1 [19573] 805-806; 
DaHoon 1958:93; GEsE 1970:120; DE Moor 
& MULDER 1973:710-712; A. Caquot & 


M. Sznycer, LAPO 7 [1974] 73). Yet the 
parallel occurrences of b'f and hd (Haddu) 
in, e.g., KTU 1.4 vii:35-37; 1.5 i:22-23; 1.10 
11:4-5 do not necessarily support this 
assumption. It could also be argued, with 
KAPELRUD (1952:50-52), that the name of 
the Mesopotamian weather god Hadad/ 
Adad, known in the West Semitic world 
through cultural contact, was applied sec- 
ondarily to Baal. 1f Baal and Hadad refer 
back to the same deity, however, it must be 
admitted that, in the first millennium BCE, 
the two names came to stand for distinct 
deities: Hadad being a god of the Aramae- 
ans, and Baal a god of the Phoenicians and 
the Canaanites (J. C. GREENFIELD, Aspects 
of Aramean Religion, Ancient Israelite Re- 
ligion [FS. F. M. Cross; ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., 
et al.; Philadelphia 1987] 67-78, esp. 68). 

In the texts from Ugarit (Ras Shamra) 
Baal is frequently characterized as aliyn b‘l, 
‘victorious Baal’ (see e.g. KTU 1.4 v:59; 1.5 
v:17; 1.6 v:10; 1.101:17-18); aliy grdm, 
‘mightiest of the heroes’ (KTU 1.3 iii:14; 
iv:7-8; 1.4 viii:34-35; 1.5 ii:10-11, 18; for a 
closer analysis see DIETRICH & LoreTZ 1980: 
392-393); dmrn. ‘the powerful, excellent 
one’ (KTU 1.4 vii:39; cf. KTU 1.92:30); or 
b‘l spn (KTU 1.16 i:6-7; 1.39:10; 1.46:14; 
1.47:5; 1.109:9, 29 —Zaphon, -*Baal-Za- 
phon). The latter designation is also found, 
in syllabic writing and therefore vocalised, 
in the Treaty of Esarhaddon of Assyria with 
king Baal of Tyre (SAA 2 [1988] no. 5 iv 
10': dBa-al-sa-pu-nu). It also occurs in a 
Punic text from Marseilles (KAJ 69:1) and a 
Phoenician text from Saqqara in Egypt (KA/ 
50:2-3). The Baal residing upon the divine 
mountain of Sapanu (the Jebel el-Aqra', 
classical Mons Casius, cf. the name Hazi in 
texts from Anatolia) is sometimes referred 
to in Ugarit as i/ spn (KTU 1.3 iii:29; iv:19; 
note, however, that the latter designation 


132 


BAAL 


may also be used to refer to the collectivity 
of gods residing on Mount Zaphon). Appar- 
ently, in the popular imagination, Baal's 
palace was situated on Mount Zaphon (KTU 
1.4 v:55; vii:6; cf. srrt spn, ‘summit of the 
Sapànu', KTU 1.3 i:21-22; 1.6 vi:12-13, and 
mrym spn, ‘heights of the Sapànu', KTU 1.3 
iv:l, 37-38; 1.4 v:23). In a cultic context 
Baal was invoked as the god of the city- 
state of Ugarit under the name b'| ugrt 
(KTU 1.27:4; 1.46:16 [restored]; 1.65: 10- 
11; 1.105:19; 1.109:11, 16, 35-36). 

Such genitival attributions as b'| ugrt may 
be compared with those that are known from 
Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions: b'l 
krntry$ (KAI 26 A 1I:19); b'l Ibnn ('Baal of 
the ->Lebanon’, KA/ 31:1-2); b'l sdn (‘Baal 
of --Sidon’, KAJ 14:18); bl sind (KAI 
24:15); bil $myn (‘Baal of the Heavens’, 
KAI 202 A 3); b'l §mm (KAI 4:3, —Baal 
shamem); cf. also b'l ’dr (KAI 9 B 5); b‘l 
hmn (KAI 24:16; Hermon); b‘l mgnm (KAI 
78:3-4). For other special forms of Baal see 
the survey by Pore & ROG LIG 1965:253- 
264. It is also to be noted, finally, that the 
Ugaritic Baal in his capacity as lord over the 
fertile land is said to be bn dgn, ‘the son of 
-—Dagan' (KTU 1.5 vi:23-24; 1.10 iii:12, 14; 
1.14 ii:25; iv:7). Yet as a member of the 
pantheon, the other gods being his brothers 
and sisters, Baal is also the son of —El— 
since all gods are ‘sons of El’ (KTU 1.3 
v:38-39; 1.4 iv:47-48; v:28-29; 1.17 vi:28- 
29; once Baal addresses El as ‘my father’, 
KTU 1.17 i:23). There is no particular ten- 
sion between these two filiations; they 
should certainly not be taken as an indica- 
tion to the effect that Baal was admitted into 
the Ugaritic pantheon at a later stage. On the 
contrary: the appellative bn expresses appur- 
tenance to a certain sphere. Baal was judged 
to be a member of the Ugaritic pantheon, 
and as such he was a son of El. Inasmuch as 
his activity was concemed with the fertility 
of the fields he was a son of the grain god 
Dagan. 

The excavations at Ras Shamra have 
supplied us with various figurative represen- 
tations of the god Baal (A. Caquot & M. 
SZNYCER, Ugaritic Religion [Leiden 1980] 


pl. VIII c (?), IX a-d, X, XII). Such icono- 
graphic representations are known from 
other places in the Syro-Palestinian area too, 
though their interpretation is fraught with 
difficulties; an unambiguous identification 
with Baal is rarely possible (P. WELTEN, 
Götterbild, männliches, BRL [1977?] 99- 
111; cf. R. HACHMANN [ed.] Frühe Phó- 
niker im Libanon: 20 Jahre deutsche Aus- 
grabungen in Kadmid ’el-Léz [Mainz am 
Rhein 1983] 165). 

The worship of Baal demonstrably per- 
vaded the entire area inhabited by the 
Canaanites. During the period of the Middle 
Kingdom, if not earlier, the cult was adopted 
by the Egyptians, along with the cult of 
other Canaanite gods (S. MORENZ, Agyp- 
tische Religion [RdM 8; Stuttgart 19772] 
250-255). In the wake of the Phoenician 
colonization it eventually spread all over the 
Mediterranean region. 

The domain or property of the god con- 
sists either of a natural area or one created 
by human hand; the relationship of the god 
to his territory is expressed with a genitival 
construction: Baal is the lord of a mountain, 
a city, and the like. The place may either 
coincide with a sanctuary, or contain one. 
Since the separate population groups within 
the Syrian-Palestine area each knew their 
own Baal, as the literary documents show, it 
may be assumed that people had a well cir- 
cumscribed image of the god as a deity of 
fundamental significance for the human 
existence (cf. A. CAQvuor & M. SZNYCER, 
LAPO 7 [1974] 77). The conclusion is 
confirmed by the frequency of Baal as 
theophoric component in personal names 
(PN 114, 116, 119-122; KAI III, 45-52; F. 
GRONDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte 
aus Ugarit [Rome 1967] 114-117.131-133). 
Also in the Amarna letters there occur 
proper names compounded with the divine 
name Baal (if 4im may be read as ba‘lu, e.g. 
EA 256:2, 5; 257:3; 314:3; 330:3). 

Since the information conceming Baal in 
the Bible is negatively biased, a characteri- 
zation of the god and his attributes must be 
based in the first place on texts from the 
Syro-Canaanite world. The examination of 


133 


BAAL 





the Iron Age inscriptional material, how- 
ever, be it Phoenician, Punic, or Aramaic, is 
not especially productive. Though Baal or 
one of his manifestations is frequently men- 
tioned, he usually appears in conjunction 
with other gods, his particular field of action 
being seldom defined. Only the Phoenician 
inscription of Karatepe (8th century BCE) 
yields information in this respect (KA/ 26). 
It tells about Baal in a way that is reminis- 
cent of the mythic tradition of Ras Shamra. 
King Azitawadda calls himself ‘steward’ 
(brk, cf. Akk abarakku, Ebla a-ba-ra-gu, see 
M. KREBERNIK, WO 15 [1984] 89-92) and 
‘servant’ (‘bd) of Baal (KA/ 26 A I:1). He 
claims that the god appointed him in order 
that he (i.c. the king) might secure for his 
people prosperous conditions (KA/ 26 A I:3, 
8; I[:6). A possible counterpart may be 
found in the Aramaic inscription of Afis (8th 
century BCE) where King Zakir (or Zakkur) 
of Hamat and Lu‘ash says that Baal-Shamin 
appointed him king over Hazrak (KA/ 202 A 
3-4) and promised him aid and rescue in 
distress (lines 12-13). On occasion, Baal is 
asked to grant life and welfare (KA/ 26 A 
IIl:11: C 1II:16-20; 1V:12; cf. 4:3: 18:1,7; 
266:2). In the Karatepe inscription, as in the 
inscription from Afis (B 23), the heavenly 
Baal (Baal-shamem) is mentioned besides 
other gods as guarantor of the inviolability 
of the inscription (A 11I:18; cf. KA/ 24:15- 
16); it is an open question whether he 
differs from the god Baal or whether he is 
really the same deity approached from a dif- 
ferent angle. Some random data may be 
culled from the remaining texts. The Phoen- 
ician incantation of Arslan Tash (KAI 27), 
presumably dating from the 7th century BCE 
(unless it is a forgery, as argued by J. 
TEIXIDOR & P. AMIET, AulOr 1 [1983] 105- 
109), has been thought to mention the eight 
wives of Baal (l. 18); it is also possible, if 
not more likely, that the epithet b‘? qdš 
refers back to -*Horon, whose 'seven con- 
cubines' are mentioned in line 17 (cf. NESE 
2 [1974] 24). A Nco-Punic inscription from 
Tunesia refers to Baal-hamon and Baal- 
addir (KA/ 162:1), apparently as gods that 
are able to grant pregnancy and offspring. 


These few testimonies give only a very 
general idea of Baal. The capacities in 
which he acts, as kingmaker and protector, 
benefactor and donator of offspring, do not 
distinguish him from other major gods. 

Far more productive are the mythological 
texts from Ras Shamra ca. 1350 BCE, which 
contain over 500 references to Baal. They 
help us to delineate the particular province 
of the god. The myths tell how he obtained 
royal rule and reigns as king (KTU 1.2 
iv:32; 1.4 vii:49-50). He is called sovereign 
(‘judge’, tpt, a title more frequently applied 
to the god Yammu) and king (KTU 1.3 v:32; 
1.4 iv:43-44). Several times his kingdom, 
his royal throne and his sovereignty are 
mentioned (KTU 1.1 iv:24-25; 1.2 iv:10; 1.3 
iv:2-3; 1.4 vii:44: 1.6 v:5-6; vi:34-35; 1.10: 
13-14). His elevated position shows itself in 
his power over clouds, storm and lightning, 
and manifests itself in his thundering voice 
(KTU 1.4 v:8-9; vii:29, 31; 1.5 v:7; 1.101:3- 
4). As the god of wind and weather Baal 
dispenses dew, rain, and snow (KTU 1.3 ii: 
39-41; 1.4 v:6-7; 1.5 v:8; 1.16 iii:5-7; 1.101: 
7) and the attendant fertility of the soil 
(KTU 1.3 ii:39; 1.6 iii:6-7, 12-13 [note the 
metaphor of *oil and honcy', for which see 
also the Hebrew phrase ‘a land flowing with 
milk and honey' in Exod 3:8.17; Lev 20:24; 
Deut 26:9; cf. Amos 9:13; Ps 65:12]; KTU 
1.4 vii:50-51). Baal's rule guarantees the 
annual return of the vegetation; as the god 
disappears in the underworld and returns in 
the autumn, so the vegetation dies and 
resuscitates with him. Being the major one 
among the gods, or rather perceived as such, 
Baal was naturally a king to his Ugaritic 
devotees. Yet kingship is not Baal’s sole 
characteristic; it is merely the way he is 
extolled. His nature is far more rich. 

Baal is seen at work not just in the cycli- 
cal pattern of the seasons. He is also called 
upon to drive away the enemy that attacks 
the city (KTU 1.119:28-34), which shows 
that the god also interferes in the domain of 
human history. His involvement in matters 
of sex and procreation, though often 
mentioned in secondary studies, is not very 
explicit in the texts. A passage in the Epic 


134 


BAAL 





of Aghat narrates how Baal intercedes with 
El, that the latter might grant a son to 
Dan’el (KTU 1.17 i:16-34). Yet this is 
almost the only testimony concerning Baal's 
involvement in the province of human fertil- 
ity. The other texts referred to in older stu- 
dies are either misinterpreted or highly 
dubious. Thus KTU 1.82 is not an incanta- 
tion asking Baal to grant fertility, but a text 
against snake bites (G. DEL OLMO LETE, La 
religión cananea según la liturgia de Ugarit 
[Barcelona 1992} 251-255). KTU 1.13 may 
indeed be an incantation against infertility, 
with Baal in the role of granter of offspring 
(J. C. pe Moor, An Incantation Against In- 
fertility, UF 12 [1980] 305-310). but other 
interpretations can also be defended with 
some plausibilty (see, c.g., LAPO 14 [1989] 
19-27). On the whole it seems mistaken to 
infer from Baal's role as bestower of natural 
fertility that he fulfilled the same role in the 
domain of human fertility. Also, at Ugarit, 
there are other gods who might equally be 
called upon to bless a family with children. 

A further theme in the myths is the antag- 
onism between Baal and Yammu the god of 
the sea (KTU 1.2). In addition to this 
tablet from the Baal Cycle, other texts al- 
lude to the theme; they speak of Baal's 
combat against the -*River (Nahar) and the 
monsters tnn (Tunnanu, ->Tannin), bin ‘glin 
(the twisted serpent), /tn bin brh (Litanu, the 
fugitive serpent; -*Leviathan), and Slyt 
(Salyatu; KTU 1.3 iii:39-42; 1.5 i:1-3, 27- 
30)—all belonging to the realm of Yammu 
according to KTU 1.3 iii:38-39. It is interest- 
ing to compare these data with the account 
by Philo Byblius: “Then Ouranos [= El] 
again went to battle, against Pontos [= 
Yammu]. Yet having turned back he allied 
himself. with Demarous [= Baal]. And 
Demarous advanced against Pontos, but 
Pontos routed him. Demarous vowed to 
offer a sacrifice in return for his escape” 
(Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 1.10.28; cf. H. W. 
ATTRIDGE & R. A. Open, Jr., Philo of 
Byblos: The Phoenician History {Washing- 
ton 1981} 52-53, 190 nn. 119-120). 

These reports might lead to the con- 
clusion that Baal is revered as the god who 


protects against the forces of destruction. 
More particularly, however, his defeat of 
Yammu symbolizes the protection he can 
offer sailors and sea-faring merchants. Baal 
is a patron of sailors (C. GRAVE, The Ety- 
mology of Northwest Semitic sapdnu, UF 
12 [1980} 221-229 esp. 228; cf. M. BIETAK, 
Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Agypten 
und Levante | [1990] 9-16). In the Baal 
temple of Ugarit a number of votive anchors 
have been found. Sailors could descry from 
afar the acropolis temple, so they knew 
where to turn to with their supplications for 
safekeeping and help (cf. M. YON, Ougarit 
et ses Dieux, Resurrecting the Past: A Joint 
Tribute to Adnan Bounni [ed. P. Matthiae, 
M. van Loon & H. Weiss; Istanbul/Leiden 
1990] 325-343, esp. 336-337). This observa- 
tion is confirmed by a reference in the treaty 
of Esarhaddon with king Baal of Tyre. It 
shows that Baal Zaphon had power to rescue 
at sea, since the curse speaks about the pos- 
sibility of Baal Zaphon sinking the Tyrian 
ships by means of a sea-storm (SAA 2 no. 5 
iv 107-13"). 

Finally attention. should be paid to a 
rather different aspect of the way believers 
thought Baal might intervene in their lives. 
It concerns Baal's connection with the 
netherworld, as it is expressed in the myth 
about Baal's fight with —>Mot (personified 
death). Mythological fragments not belong- 
ing to the Baal Cycle have increased our 
knowledge of this side of the god. Baal is 
called with the epithet rpu (Rapi’u), ‘healer’ 
(cf. Hebrew rodpé’). DIETRICH & LORETZ 
have shown that Baal is called rpu in his 
capacity as leader of the rpum, the Reph- 
aim (1980:171-182). They find the epithet in 
KTU 1.108:1-2. and guess KTU 1.113 
belongs to the same category of texts. The 
Ràpi'üma (Hebrew répa’im) are the ghosts 
of the deceased ancestors, more especially 
of the royal family. Baal is their lord in the 
realm of the dead, as shown by the circum- 
location zbl bl ars (prince, lord of the 
underworld’; DIETRICH & Loretz 1980: 
392). According to KTU 1.17 vi:30 Baal is 
able to vivify, which DIETRICH & LORETZ 
interpret to mean that he activated the dece- 


135 


BAAL 


ased and thus played a major role in the 
ancestor cult. The expression adn ilm rbin 
(KTU 1.124:1-2) may also be understood as 
an epithet of Baal, designating him as ‘lord 
of the great gods’, i.e. of the deified ances- 
tors (1980:289-290). 

III. The biblical references in which 222 
means 'husband' (e.g. Gen 20:3; Exod 
21:3.22) fall outside the scope of this article. 
Only Hos 2:18 is ambiguous in this respect. 
Evidently the verse did not originate as a 
dictum of Hosea; it was written at a later 
time (so already W. W. Graf BAUDISSIN, 
Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und 
seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte [ed. 
O. Eissfeldt; Giessen 1929], Vol. 3, 89-90; 
recently J. JEREMIAS, Der Prophet Hosea 
[ATD 24/1; Géttingen 1983), ad locum). In 
the eschatological future, according to the 
prophet, the Israelites will call Yahweh 
‘my man’ and no longer ‘my Baal’. Since 
otherwise Baal is never used as a designa- 
tion of Yahweh, both ‘my man’ (isi) and 
‘my Baal’ (ba‘dli) are to be understood as 
‘my husband’, even though the former is 
more common in this sense than the latter 
(Gen 2:23; 16:3; Lev 21:7; Num 5:27 and 
often). In the background, however, the 
verse is a polemic against the cult of Baal 
(thus also the LXX by the plural Baad). 

The name Baal is used in the OT for the 
most part in the singular, and rarely in the 
plural; it is generally preceded by the article 
(Num 22:41 is no exception because it char- 
acterizes a cultic place). On the basis of this 
data, EISSFELDT has denied that there were a 
great number of Baals, distinguished from 
each other by reference to a locality or some 
other specification, such as a genitival at- 
tribute (->Baal-berith) or an apposition (Baal- 
zebul, thus to be read instead of -*Baal- 
zebub; see O. EISSFELDT, Ba‘al-Samem und 
Jahwe, ZAW 57 [1939] 1-31, esp. 15-17 = 
KS II [1963] 171-198, esp. 184-185). The 
many local Baals are rather to be understood 
as manifestations of the one Baal wor- 
shipped among the Canaanite population 
(thus DE Moor & MULDER 1973:709-710, 
719-720; but note the critical observations 
by KOHLEWEIN 1971:331). 

The frequent occurrences of the name 


Baal in the OT are instructive about the kind 
of relations that the Israelites entertained 
with the deity. During the early history of 
Israel the name was by no means applied to 
Yahweh, as is sometimes affirmed (pace 
KAPELRUD 1952:43-44). The proper name 
Bealiah (1 Chr 12:6[5]), meaning ‘Yahweh 
is Baal/Lord’, is insufficient evidence to 
prove that Baal was a customary epithet of 
Yahweh. The theophoric component ‘Baal’ 
in proper names reveals most bearers of 
these names to be worshippers of Baal, or to 
come from a family of Baal worshippers. 
All kinds of observations in the Bible docu- 
ment the fact that the Israelites addressed a 
cult to Baal. From a religio-historical point 
of view this comes hardly as a surprise. 
Also among the Ammonites Baal enjoyed a 
certain popularity (see Gen 36:38-39 for 
Baal as thcophoric element in an Ammonite 
personal name; the god is possibly men- 
tioned in the Amman theatre inscription, see 
K. P. JACKSON, The Ammonite Language of 
the Iron Age [HSM 27; Chico 1983] 45 and 
U. HÜBNER, Die Ammoniter [ADPV 16: 
Wiesbaden 1992] 21-23: b" occurs as a 
theophoric clement in a personal name on a 
seal from Tell-el-‘Uméri: b‘lys‘, HUBNER 
1992:86; B. BEckiNG, JSS 38 [1993] 15- 
24). In addition to the more general refer- 
ences in Judg 6:31-32: 1 Kgs 18:21.26: 2 
Kgs 10:19-20.28, there are references to the 
temple of Baal (1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 10:21. 
23.25-27; 11:18); his altar (Judg 6:25.28.30- 
32; 1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 21:3); his cultic 
pillar (2 Kgs 3:2; 10:27); his prophets (1 
Kgs 18:19.22.25.40; 2 Kgs 10:19); and his 
priests (2 Kgs 11:18). It cannot be said that 
the cult of Baal flourished only in certain 
periods or in a number of restricted areas; 
nor was it limited to the Canaanite part of 
the population (assuming that Canaanites 
and Israelites were distinguishable entities). 
The general impact of his cult is proven, in 
the negative so to speak, by the reports 
about its suppression in Israel and Judah (1 
Sam 7:4; 12:10; 2 Kgs 10:18-28; 11:18; 
23:4-5; 2 Chr 23:17; 34:4), and by the ref- 
erences to the handful of faithful who had 
not bowed to Baal (1 Kgs 19:18; 2 Chr 
17:3). Similarly the increasingly sharp pol- 


136 


BAAL 


emics which came to dominate the Israelite 
literature (cf. KOHLEWEIN 1971:331) attest 
to the fact that during the early Iron Age the 
god Baal played a large part in the belief of 
the Israclite population. F. E. EAKIN, Jr. 
(Yahwism and Baalism before the Exile, 
JBL 84 [1965] 407-414) correctly empha- 
sizes that until Elijah, the worship of 
Yahweh and the cult of Baal coexisted with- 
out any problem. It should be remembered, 
moreover, that the cult of Baal did not cease 
to be practised, notwithstanding the notice 
in 2 Kgs 10:28 which says that “Jehu wiped 
out Baal from Israel”. 

The polemics gained prominence as the 
worship of Yahweh gained ground. Their 
typical means of expression is the accusa- 
tion that the Israelites turned away from 
Yahweh at a very early stage in their his- 
tory; they allegedly preferred to bring 
sacrifices to the Baalim or to Baal, and they 
continued to do so until the end of the exist- 
ence of the independent states of Israel and 
Judah (sce e.g. Judg 2:11-13; 1 Kgs 16:31- 
32; 2 Kgs 17:16; Hos 11:2; Zeph 1:4; Jer 
9:13). In Judaism the substitution of the read- 
ing ‘Baal’ by bdSet, ‘ignominy, disgrace, 
dishonour’ became customary (-*Bashtu); 
the Septuagint used the terms aioxybvn (1 
Kgs 18:19.25; with Aquila and Theodotion 
Jer 11:13) and &i8oAov (Jer 9:13; 2 Chr 
17:3; 28:2). The few references suggest that 
the Greek pejorative names were seldom 
used. Yet it should be noted that Baad is 
often preceded by the feminine article, 
which fact must be interpreted as a re- 
flection of a reading 1 aioxóvn. The Vul- 
gate throughout renders Baal and Baalim 
(for the historic development of that usage 
cf. DE Moor & MULDER 1973:719). 

The figure of Baal which the Bible pre- 
sents as being worshipped by the Israclites 
must have resembled the Baal known from 
Syrian and Phoenician sources, most notably 
the Ugaritic tablets. As the biblical data are 
unyielding with information about the nature 
of Baal, however, the researcher is often 
reduced to guesses based on comparative 
evidence. 

The first source to be dealt with is the 
cycle of Elijah narratives, as they are con- 


cerned with the competition between Baal 
and Yahweh—or rather the respective 
groups that claim loyalty to the one or the 
other. The central issue of the battle is the 
ability to produce rain, and hence to grant 
fertility to the fields (cf. 1 Kgs 17:1.7.14; 
18:1.2.41-46). It is Yahweh's prophet who 
announces the withholding of the rain and 
its ultimate return. His message is that rain 
and fertility of the soil do not depend on 
Baal but on Yahweh (cf. Hos 2:10). Appar- 
ently | Kgs 18:38 ("Then the fire of 
Yahweh fell") is to be understood as a refer- 
ence to lightning and thunder. It has often 
been noted that this implies a transference of 
certain qualities of Baal onto Yahweh. Else- 
where, too, Yahweh has assumed character- 
istics of Baal. He is associated with winds, 
clouds, rain, flashes, and thunder (Exod 
19:9.16; Amos 4:7; Nah 1:3; Ps 18 [2 2 
Sam 22]:14-15; 77: 18-19). It is Yahweh 
who gives the ‘dew of heaven’ and the ‘fat- 
ness of the earth’ (Gen 27:28)—something 
normally associated with Baal. 

Baal’s chthonic aspect should also be 
taken into consideration. It, too, has been 
transferred and projected upon Yahweh, thus 
widening his sphere of action. Yet a distinc- 
tive difference remains. Unlike Baal in the 
Ugaritic tradition, Yahweh is never said to 
be descending into the netherworld for a 
definite amount of time, in order to fortify 
the dead. Yet Yahweh was believed to pos- 
sess the ability to perform acts of power 
within the realm of the dead inasmuch as he 
was able to resuscitate from the dead, or to 
interfere in matters of the underworld. The 
texts that say so (Amos 9:2; Hos 13:14; Isa 
7:11) date from the 8th century BcE. They 
voice a conviction not formerly found; it 
was a prophetic innovation with far-reaching 
consequences. The ground for it had been 
prepared by the popular belief that Baal, as 
an important deity in human life, must 
equally have power over the realm of the 
dead. In the mind of the believer, there are 
no fixed limits to the power of the god. 

The tradition of Baal as the slayer of the 
sea and its monsters was also known in 
Palestine (—>Leviathan). This is shown, for 
instance, by the fact that in later times 


137 


BAAL 


Baal’s victories have been ascribed to 
Yahweh. In passages which are almost lit- 
eral echoes of certain Ugaritic texts and 
expressions, Yahweh is celebrated as the 
one who defeated Yammu and the sca 
dragons tannin, liwyatan, nahas, bariah 
respectively ndha§ ‘aqgallatén (Isa 27:1; 
51:9-10; Jer 5:22; Ps 74:13-14; 89:10-11). 
In addition there is the defeated monster 
~Rahab, so far absent from the mythology 
of Ras Shamra. 

The Canaanite cult of Baal as described 
in the Bible, and practised by the Israclites, 
has certain traits that are not without paral- 
lels outside the Bible. The ecstatic beha- 
viour of the Baal prophets described in | 
Kgs 18:26.28, the bowing to the image of 
the god (1 Kgs 19:18), and the kissing of his 
statue (Jer 2:8; 23:13) are hardly typically 
Israelite (cf. R. DE Vaux, Les prophètes de 
Baal sur le Mont Carmel, Bible et Orient 
[Paris 1967] 485-497). 

Considering the data about Baal surveyed 
until now, it cannot be excluded that the 
Palestinian Canaanites called their god Baal 
with the title ‘king’ as well—in the same 
manner as the Ugaritic texts do. El too may 
have received the title. Such practices will 
undoubtedly have been an influence in the 
Israelite use of the epithet in relation to 
Yahweh (cf. ScuMipT 1966). Yet we are not 
in a position to determine exactly when and 
how the transfer of the title came about. 

Because of the similarity between the two 
gods, many of the traits ascribed to Yahweh 
inform us on the character of the Palestinian 
Baal. For lack of other data, it is impossible 
to say whether the resulting image is com- 
plete. Also, it cannot be excluded that the 
Palestinian cult of Baal, and its theology, 
differed at various points from that which is 
found in the Ugaritic texts. The case of 
Rahab, mentioned before, offers a telling 
illustration. Something, however, which can 
hardly be correct about the Palestinian Baal 
is the accusation that child sacrifice was an 
element in his cult (Jer 19:5; 32:35). The 
two texts that say so are late and evidently 
biased in their polemic; without confirma- 
tion from an unsuspected source their infor- 


mation should be dismissed. Similarly the 
idea of cultic prostitution as an ingredient of 
the Baal cult should not be taken for a fact. 
This too is an unproven assumption for 
which only Jer 2:23 and Hos 2:15 can be 
quoted in support; neither text is unam- 
biguous (cf. bE Moor & MuLperR 1973: 
717-718). 

Baal held a unique position among the 
inhabitants of Palestine. People experienced 
the pattern of the seasons, and the regular 
return of fertility, as an act of Baal’s power. 
Yahweh was initially a god acting mainly in 
the realm of history. Owing to his growing 
place in Israelite religion, his sphere of 
influence gradually widened to eventually 
include what had once been the domain of 
Baal as well. His rise in importance was 
only possible, in fact, through his incorpora- 
tion of traits that had formerly been charac- 
teristic of Baal only. 

IV. Bibliography 
M. J. DAHooD, Ancient Semitic Deities in 
Syria and Palestine, Le antiche divinità 
semitiche (ed. S. Moscati; Rome 1958) 65- 
94; M. DirETRICH & O. LonErz, Baal Rpu 
in KTU 1.108; 1.113 und nach 1.17 V1 25- 
33, UF 12 (1980) 171-182; DiETRIECH & 
LonETZ, Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Adonis 
and Adonaj, UF 12 (1980) 287-292; DiET- 
RIECH & LomErz, Die Ba'al-Titel bl arg 
und aliy qrdm, UF 12 (1980) 391-393; 
DIETRIECH & LoreTZ, Ugaritische Rituale 
und Beschwörungen. Texte aus der Umwelt 
des Alten Testaments, TUAT 2 (1986-89) 
328-357; O. EISSFELDT, Baal Zaphon, Zeus 
Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten 
durchs Meer (Halle 1932); G. FoHnER, Elia 
(Zürich 19682); H. GESE, RAAM. 119-134; 
R. HILLMANN, Wasser und Berg. Kosmische 
Verbindungslinien zwischen dem kanaani- 
ischen Wettergott und Jahwe (Halle/Saale 
1965); A. S. KAPELRUD, Baal in the Ras 
Shamra Texts (Oslo 1952); J. KÜHLEWEIN, 
222. THAT 1 (1971) 327-333; J. C. DE 
Moon & M. J. MuLptER, 293, TWAT 1 
(1973) 706-727; M. J. MULDER, Ba'al in het 
Oude Testament (Kampen 1962); MULDER, 
Kanaiinitische Goden in het Oude Testament 
(Kampen 1965) 25-36; G. PETTINATO, Pre- 


138 


BAALAT 


Ugaritic Documentation of Ba‘al. The Bible 
World. Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon 
(ed. G. Rendsburg er al.; New York 1980) 
203-209; M. H. Pope & W. ROLLIG, Syrien. 
Die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phinizier, 
WbMyth Wl 217-312; W. H. SCHMIDT, 
Königtum Gottes in Ugarit und Israel 
(BZAW 80; Berlin 19662); P. XELLA, 
Aspekte religiöser Vorstellungen in Syrien 
nach den Ebla- und Ugarit-Texten, UF 15 
(1983) 279-290 (esp. 284-286); P. J. VAN 
ZuL, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connection 
with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (Neu- 
kirchen-Vluyn 1972). 


W. HERRMANN 


BAALAT 7292 

I. Ba‘alat, ‘mistress’, ‘lady’, 'sover- 
eign’ (Heb ba‘dlat, Phoen/Ug b'lr, Akk 
bélni), is attested as both a divine name and 
an epithet in the ancient Near East from the 
middle third millennium sce. Though the 
term is attested in the MT as a place name 
(Josh 19:44; 1 Kgs 9:18; 2 Chr 8:6), it does 
not occur in the biblical text as the desig- 
nation of a divinity. 

Il. In Akkadian, the epithet is applied to 
a number of goddesses, most often asso- 
ciated with fertility and birth, as delit ili. In 
addition to being a common designation of 
-Ishtar, this epithet is also associated with 
specific goddesses, their cities, or their func- 
tions. 

At Ugarit, bit occurs as both an epithet 
and a divine name. In several ritual texts, 
offerings are made to bt bhtm, ‘the 
mistress of the palaces’, whose identification 
remains questioned. M. C. Astour (JNES 
27 [1968] 26) suggested a relation with Akk 
belet ekallim, ‘the mistress of the palace’ 
(see also PARDEE 1989-90:445). In a myth- 
ological text (KTU 1.108:6-8), however, b‘Ir 
is a designation for the goddess -*Anat, 
called blr mlk blt drkt b'lt Simm rnm (Ft 
kpt. ‘mistress of kingship, mistress of do- 
minion, mistress of the high heavens, Anat 
of the headdress”. It is also attested in the 
personal name abdi-4bélm, ‘servant’ of 
Beltu', from Uganit. 


The majority of the attestations of b'/t as 
a divine name are associated with the god- 
dess Ba‘alat of Byblos (b‘lr gbl), ‘the 
Mistress/Sovereign of Byblos’, to whom a 
sanctuary from the early second millennium 
BCE was dedicated. As Sbélm Sa "YGubla, 
this goddess is regularly referred to in the 
Amama correspondence of Rib-Addi to the 
Pharaoh from the fourteenth century BCE. 
The inscriptional evidence from the first 
millennium BCE demonstrates that she was 
the leading dynastic deity of that city. In the 
tenth century BCE inscription of Yehimilk, 
b'lt gbl is invoked alongside ->Baal-shamem 
as part of a pair in parallel to 'the assembly 
of the holy gods of Byblos' (mplirt °l gbl 
qdsm, KAI 4:3-4). The entire inscription of 
Yehawmilk (KA/ 10; fifth century BCE) is 
dedicated to Ba‘alat, indicating the import- 
ance of this goddess to the ruling dynasty of 
the city. 

The relief on the upper register of the 
latter inscription depicts the deity with the 
headdress commonly associated with the 
Egyptian -*Hathor, an identification also 
made with the Baʻalat (blr) of the Proto- 
Sinaitic inscriptions (fifteenth century BCE). 
With which of the major goddesses of Cana- 
an the ‘Mistress of Byblos’ is to be equated 
remains debated. Though it is common to 
identify b*It gbl with -*Astarte, based on the 
association of Astarte with -*Aphrodite in 
later sources, there appears to be good rca- 
son to question the equation. While there is 
evidence from Ugarit suggesting that b‘/r 
was an epithet of Anat, there are also rea- 
sons to interpret b‘/t as a title of -Asherah, 
who was known in Egypt as Qudsu. While it 
is possible that b'/r gbl is to be equated with 
the great Canaanite goddess Asherah, this 
deity could have been a syncretistic deity 
that combined some of the aspects of 
Asherah, Ashtarte, and Anath. 

III. In the OT. b'/t does not occur as a 
divine name or as an epithet of a deity. It is 
attested, however, in two place names. In 
Josh 19:44, ba'álát occurs as the name of a 
town included in the territorial allotment to 
Dan. A town by the same name is also listed 
among those sites which were fortified by 


139 


BAAL TOPONYMS 


Solomon (1 Kgs 9:18; 2 Chr 8:6). Its loca- 
tion remains uncertain. In Josh 19:8, in the 
list of towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon, 
occurs the name ba‘dlat bé’ér, "Mistress of 
the Well’, which could well be identified 
with Bir Rakhmeh to the southwest of 
Beersheba. Apart from the possible refer- 
ences to a divinity ‘Ba‘alat’ that may have 
been the basis for the ctymology of these 
two place names, there exists no evidence 
for the worship of a goddess ‘Ba‘alat’ in the 
biblical materials. 
IV. Bibliography 

W. F. ALBRIGHT, The Proto-Sinaitic In- 
scriptions and Their Decipherment (Cam- 
bridge, Mass. 1969) 16-17, 27-28, 39; R. J. 
CLIFFORD, Phoenician Religion, BASOR 279 
(1990) 55-64; R. S. Hess, Divine Names in 
the Amarna Texts, UF 18 (1986) 149-168: 
W. A. MAER in, “Aserah: Extra biblical 
Evidence (HSM 37; Atlanta 1986) 81-96; R. 
A. ODEN, JR., Studies in Lucian's De Syria 
Dea (HSM 15; Missoula Mont. 1977) 77- 
78; D. PaARDEE, Les Textes Para-Mytho- 
logiques de la 24e Campagne (1961) (RSOu 
IV; Paris 1988); PARDEE, Ugaritic Proper 
Names, AfO 36-37 (1989-90) 390-513; K. 
L. TALLovist, AKKGE 57-66.272-276. 


E. T. MULLEN, JR. 


BAAL TOPONYMS 

I. The nine toponyms  -*Baal-gad, 
Baal-hamon, —Baal-hazor, -Baal-hermon, 
—Baal-judah, -*Baal-meon, -Baal-perazim, 
-—Baal-shalisha, and -*Baal-tamar include 
various descriptive combinations which are 
compounded with the divine name or appel- 
lative Baal. They are all located in the 
Canaanite hill country, save for Baal-meon 
which is located on the plain east of the 
Dead Sea. 

There is a difference in the distribution of 
toponyms which are named by masculine 
(Baal-X) and feminine (Baalah, Bealoth, 
Baalath-X) forms. The former are attached 
to the highlands whereas the latter appear in 
the lowlands (Baalath; Mt Baalah) and the 
Negeb (Baalah; Baalath-beer/Bealoth). An 
exception is Kiriath-jearim which appears 


both in the masculine (Kiriath-baal, Baal- 
judah) and feminine (Baalah) forms. The 
difference in distribution may be due to the 
connection of Baal-toponyms to mountain 
and hilly peaks, the feminine forms being 
reserved for other topographical areas. 

I]. Baal is neither attested in pre-Israel- 
ite place names nor does it appear in Syrian 
second millennium BCE documents. Morc- 
over, Syro-Palestinian and Cypriote topo- 
nyms compounded with Baal are attested 
only in Neo-Assyrian records of the first 
millennium BCE, namely Ba’li-sapuna (Jebel 
Aqra‘), Ba’li-ra’si (Mount Cannel), Ba’il- 
gazara Ba'il-burri and Ba’li. The hill country 
of Canaan is hardly ever mentioned in the 
Egyptian sources of the second millennium 
BCE and we still do not know whether any 
of the biblical Baal toponyms antedates the 
Iron Age. Since most of them are located in 
the hill country, which was quite empty in 
the Late Bronze Age and was settled only in 
the Iron Age, most (or even all) of these 
sites must have been founded and named 
only at that time. 

Place names in the former areas of 
Canaan are not called by the names of the 
new national gods of the first millennium 
BCE (e.g., -> Yahweh, -*Milcom, -*Chemosh, 
—Qés, etc.). On the other hand, many places 
are called by the names of the older Canaan- 
ite deities, like -Baal, ->El (Bethel, Elto- 
lad), Dagan (Beth-dagon), Shamash (Beth- 
shemesh, see -*Shemesh), -*Horon (Beth- 
horon), Ashtoreth (Ashtaroth, see —> Astarte) 
and -*Anat (Beth-anath, Anathoth). Some of 
these names may be regarded as survivals of 
pre-Israelite names, others were apparently 
new settlements of the Iron Age I-II. 

HI. Names of individual gods can also be 
titles. Baal (like El) can be both the name of 
the god Baal or a title, ‘lord’, referring to 
another deity. Each Baal toponym must be 
analyzed in order to ascertain which of the 
two alternative interpretations is preferable. 

IV. Bibliography 
W. BonÉE, Die alten Ortsnamen Palüstinas 
(Hildesheim 19682) 95-97; B. S. J. IssER- 
LIN, Israelite and Pre-Israelite Place-Names 
in Palestine: A Historical and Geographical 


140 


BAAL-BERITH 


Sketch, PEQ 89 (1957) 133-144; H. Tap- 
MOR, Erlsr 25 (1996) 286-289. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-BERITH, i^2 £22, i72 UN 

I. Baal-berith (‘Baal of the Covenant’; 
Judg 8:33 and 9:4) and El-berith (‘El of the 
Covenant; Judg 9:46) occur only in the 
Book of Judges as specifications of the 
Canaanite fertility gods -*Baal and —EI of 
Shechem, an ancient Canaanite city in the 
hill country between Mount Gerizim and 
Mount Ebal. Also in Ugaritic texts bri 
(‘covenant’) is found in connection with 
Baal. 

H. In the OT Shechem is often 
mentioned. Already in Gen 12:6-7 we are 
told that Abram went as far in Canaan as the 
sanctuary at Shechem, and the terebinth tree 
of Moreh, and that he built there an altar “to 
the Lorp who had appeared to him”. This 
suggests that already in ‘patriarchal’ times 
the Shechem area was a religious centre (see 
e.g. Gen 33:18-20; 35:4; Josh 24:32). In 
Josh 24 it is told that Joshua concluded a 
covenant at Shechem, resulting in a confed- 
eracy of twelve Israelite tribes. Josh 24:25- 
26 informs us that "Joshua drew up a statute 
and an ordinance" (cf. Deut 11:26-32) for 
this confederacy in Shechem, and that he 
took "a great stone and set it up under the 
terebinth in the sanctuary of the LomDp". 
Many older scholars even suggested that 
Shechem was the original home of the 
Hebrew covenant as against Sinai-Horeb or 
Kadesh and that the city was the amphi- 
ctyonic sanctuary of the tribal confederacy 
of Isracl (ROWLEY 1950:125). 

In this city the dramatic story of Abi- 
melech, son of Jerubbaal (Gideon) by his 
Shechemite concubine (Judg 8:31) took 
place, as told in Judg 9. We are informed 
that in this time the gods of the city were 
the Canaanite gods Baal-berith and El- 
berith. So Shechem was a Canaanite enclave 
at the time of Abimelech, and the “citizens 
of Shechem" might not have been Israclites, 
but Canaanite inhabitants (FowLER 1983: 
52). A shrine of Baal-berith should have 


been in the city (9:4). But his cult must also 
have been popular among those Israelites 
who lived in the neighbourhood of Shechem 
(8:33). In 9:46, on the other hand, a erypt— 
be it a subterreanean cave or a hidden dark 
room or vault—of a temple of El-berith in 
Migdal-Shechem (‘Tower of Shechem’) is 
mentioned. Is this a reference to the temple 
of Baal-berith as that of El-berith, ‘the cov- 
enant god’, and is the substitution of ‘El’ for 
‘Baal’ due to “scribal orthodoxy” (Gray 
1962)? Or have we to do with two different 
temples? In the opinion of Simons (1943; 
1959) and other scholars Migdal-Shechem 
(Judg 9:46-49) is to be distinguished from 
the city of Shechem. It must have been situ- 
ated in the neighbourhood of that city as 
its advanced defensive bulwark (Mount 
Zalmon, Judg 9:48, identical with ‘Beth- 
Millo' in Judg 9:6.20). But in Abimelech's 
time this stronghold must have developed 
into a small settlement, depending on the 
mother-city of Shechem, symbolized by the 
surviving original name as well as by the 
cult of a common deity Baal-berith/El- 
berith. NIELSEN (1955) identified Migdal- 
Shechem and Beth-Millo (Judg 9:6.20) with 
the main building on the acropolis of Tell 
Balatah. 

The questions to be dealt with here are 
primarily archaeological. The mound (Tell 
Balatah) of—presumably—biblical Shechem 
has been excavated by various expeditions 
since 1913 (Sellin and Welter between 1913 
and 1934; G. E. Wright led eight campaigns 
between 1956 and 1969). According to 
Wright, a massive structure, with walls 
seventeen feet thick, had replaced the coun- 
yard temples of Shechem at about 1650 BCE. 
According to CAMPBELL (1962), it is quite 
likely that all the structures mentioned in 
Judg 9:4.6 and 9:46 are part of the complex 
in Shechem's sacred precinct. 

Other buildings which could be inter- 
preted as sanctuaries, have been found with- 
in and nearby the city too (WRIGHT 1968). 
The existence of these sanctuaries outside 
the sacred precinct, and even outside 
Shechem. can throw indirect light on the tra- 
ditions of sacred places in the Shechem 


141 


BAAL-BERITH 


pass. But at the same time it complicates the 
issue of whether there was only one temple 
for one deity called now Baal-berith now EI- 
berith, or there were actually two shrines 
one for Baal-berith and one for El-berith. 
The latter possibility is accepted on good 
grounds by many modern scholars (SOGGIN 
1967; 1988: DE Moor 1990). There is also 
an identification of an excavated building on 
Mount Ebal with the El-berith temple of 
Judg 9. It was Zertal who surveyed Mount 
Ebal during five campaigns (starting in 
1982), and found there a “temenos wall” 
enclosing a large central courtyard. An ani- 
fact was discovered, which has been sub- 
jected to different interpretations: a great 
altar (ZERTAL 1985; 1986), a watchtower 
(SOGGIN 1988), or even an old farmhouse 
(KEMPINSKI 1986). Zertal saw it at first as a 
cultic site for the tribal Israelite confederacy 
which he associated with the biblical tradi- 
tion (Deut 27:4; Josh 8:30-35). But Soggin 
is of the opinion that it could be the Migdal- 
Shechem, a small fortified settlement, with a 
holy place and an altar for El-berith. It 
ought to be said that the identification of the 
building within Shechem, excavated by 
Wright, as the temple of El-berith is also 
seriously disputed (FOWLER 1983). 

As is known, El and Baal were important 
deities in the Ugaritic and Canaanite pan- 
theon, and it is not unlikely that they could 
both have had a shrine in Shechem (MuL- 
DER 1962; SOGGIN 1967). In Ugarit too, El 
and Baal both had a temple (J. C. DE Moor, 
The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth 
of Ba‘lu [Kevelaer 1971} 111). Besides, in 
KTU 1.3 1:28, brt ‘covenant’ may have been 
used in connection with Baal. According to 
Cross (1973) the name i! brt is also used in 
a Hurrian hymn for El. Scumitt (1964) 
argued that this god was originally identical 
with the Indian-Iranian god Mitra (‘agree- 
ment’ in Semitic form), for in the second 
millennium sce the Indo-Iranians were 
widely scattered throughout the Near East; i/ 
brt, however, should be interpreted as the 
Old Semitic deity /labrat (M. DIETRICH & 
W. Mayer, UF 26 [1994] 92 with lit.). 

III. It is not easy to determine which was 


the special character of Baal-berith and of El- 
berith in Judg 9. There is in the first place 
the question of the age and the composition 
of the traditions in Judg 9. Jaroš (1976:76- 
77) takes Judg 9:8-15.26-40.46-54 as an old 
tradition; Judg 9:1-7.16a.19b-21.23-24.41- 
45.56-57 as a later one; Judg 16b-19a.22.55 
were added by a later hand. The fact that 
both deities are mentioned in one and the 
same area only in this composite story 
(Shechem) could be an indication that there 
was a close connection between the two dei- 
ties in the Shechemite pantheon, analogous 
to the connection between Baal and El in 
the Ugaritic pantheon. It may even be that 
the passage in which El Berith is mentioned 
is the older tradition. Baal Berith, however, 
is pictured as a Canaanite god who was 
worshipped by many Israelites too (Judg 
9:33). 

Of the old versions LXX offers two dif- 
ferent translations of the book of Judges, 
one represented by codex B (Vaticanus), the 
other by codex A (Alexandrinus). LXXA 
tries to translate terms like Baal-berith 
(Baad S:a@jxn>), whereas LXXB often 
simply transcribes the Hebrew expression 
with Greek letters (v 4: BaaABepi0; v 46: 
Boi8nABepi0; NIELSEN 1955:142). The 
Peshitta and the Targum translate the 
Hebrew text as bé‘al qéyám[a?] (Baal of the 
covenant). In v 46 the Targum paraphrases 
the difficulties in this way: “...to the gather- 
ing place of the house of God to cut a cov- 
enant". In the same way the Vulgate para- 
phrases the second part of v 46: “...they 
went into the shrine of their god Berith, 
where they had concluded a covenant with 
him, and therefore that very fortified place 
had got its name" (... ingressi sunt fanum 
dei sui Berith ubi foedus cum eo pepigerant 
et ex eo locus nomen acceperat qui erat 
valde munitus). In Judg 8:33 Vulg. translates 
as Baal foedus, but in 9:4 the Hebrew 
expression is oddly transcribed: Baalberith. 

There are scholars who believe that Israel 
drew its belief in a divine covenant with 
Yahweh from an analogous cult of Baal- 
berith in Shechem, or even that ba'al was 
only an epithet for Yahweh in the stories of 


142 


BAAL-BERITH 


Judges (KAUFMANN 1961:138-139). The 
view that Baal-berith officiated as supervisor 
and guardian of a political treaty between 
Shechem and some other city-states or the 
local Israelite population is accepted by 
many scholars. Hence the explanation of his 
name as Baal-berith. But that there had been 
a profound influence from this Baal upon 
Israel is unprovable. {srael’s tradition of the 
Sinai covenant was not moulded upon the 
pattern of the Shechem covenant of Baal- 
berith (CLEMENTS 1968). On the other hand 
the story in Judg 9 presupposes some 
normal relations between Shechemites and 
Israelites (NIELSEN 1955:171). But this does 
not mean that Yahweh was worshipped in 
Shechem with the name Baal-berith, as 
GRESSMANN (1929:163-164) suggested. 
Another view regarding the nature of 
Baal-berith is that he was one of the parties 
of a covenant to which his worshippers 
formed the corresponding party. so that a 
religious, or cultic, covenant was involved. 
Clements points out that a part of the popu- 
lation of Shechem is described as “men of 
Hamor" (in Gen 34 the name Hamor means 
‘ass’), and that the ritual for the affirmation 
of a covenant by the slaughtering of an ass 
is testified in the ancient Near East. Those 
who were bound under covenant having par- 
ticipated in this ritual became "sons of 
Hamor” (“sons of the ass“). The covenant of 
Hamor “was almost certainly related to 
Baal-Berith, who was the chief god of the 
city” (CLEMENTS 1968:29; see also 
ALBRIGHT 1953:113, who was of the opin- 
ion that Baal-berith was an appellation of 
the god —>Horon). This suggests a divine 
covenant between the local Baal and certain 
citizens of Shechem rather than a covenant 
in which Baal acted as the guardian of a 
local political treaty (CLEMENTS 1968:31). 
In Judg 9 it is shown, however, that this 
god was also a god of fertility and vegeta- 
tion (v 27)—so was Baal in the Canaanite 
pantheon: the men of Shechem went out into 
the field, gathered the grapes from the 
vineyards, trod them and held festival, 
coming “into the house of their god". The 
identity of this god goes unsaid, but it must 


be either El or Baal—and most likely the 
latter one. Much of the later Israelite ethos 
was opposed to the tradition of the Canaan- 
ite Baal. So it is very unlikely that the cove- 
nant tradition is derived from the covenant 
tradition of Baal-berith of Shechem. The 
name ‘Berith’, however, may refer to his 
function among the Shechemites “as the wit- 
Ness or guarantor of the covenant between 
two peoples” (Lewis 1992). 
IV. Bibliography 

W. F. ALBRIGHT, Archaeology and the Re- 
ligion of Israel (Baltimore 1953) 113; T. A. 
Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von 
Salomo bis Herodes ! (Leiden 1970) 388- 
394.595-597. E. F. CAMPBELL, Shechem 
(City), IDBS (1962) 821-822; R. E. CLEM- 
ENTS, Baal-Berith of Shechem, JSS 13 
(1968) 21-32; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth 
and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass. 1973); 
I. FINKELSTEIN, The Archaeology of the 
Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem 1988), esp. 
81-85; M. D. FowLer, A Closer Look at the 
"Temple of El-Berith" at Shechem, PEQ 
115 (1983) 49-53; J. Gray, Baal-Berith, 
IDB | (1962) 331; H. GRESSMANN, Die 
Anfänge Israels (Gdttingen 1929, 2nd ed.); 
K. Jaroš, Sichem; Eine archäologische und 
religionsgeschichtliche Studie (OBO 11; 
Freiburg & Göttingen 1976); Y. 
KAUFMANN, The Religion of Israel, transl. 
and abridged by M. Greenberg (London 
1961); A. Kempinski, Joshua’s Altar—An 
Iron Age I Watch-tower?, BAR 12 (1986) 
44-49; T. J. Lewis, Baal-Berith, ABD 
1(1992) 550-551; E. Lipinsxi, El-Berit, 
Syria 50 (1973) 50-51; M. J. MULDER, 
Ba'al in het Oude Testament ('s-Gravenhage 
1962), esp. 134-139; J. C. DE Moor, The 
Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite 
Monotheisin (BETL 91; Leuven 1990); E. 
NIELSEN, Shechem; A Traditio-Historical 
Investigation (Copenhagen 1955, 2nd ed.); 
H. H. RowLEY, From Joseph to Joshua; 
Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeol- 
ogy (London 1950), esp. 125-129; G. 
ScHMITT, El Berit - Mitra, ZAW 76 (1964) 
325-327); J. A. SOGGIN, Bemerkungen zur 
alttestamentlichen Topographie Sichems mit 
besonderem Bezug auf Jdc. 9. ZDPV 83 


143 


BAAL-GAD — BAAL-HAZON 


(1967) 183-198; SocciN, The Migdal 
Temple, Migdal Sekem Judg 9 and the Arti- 
fact on Mount Ebal, ‘Wiinschet Jerusalem 
Frieden'. IOSOT Congress Jerusalem 1986 
(ed. M. Augustin & K.-D. Schunck; Frank- 
furt am Main 1988) 115-119; G. R. H. 
WRIGHT, Temples at Shechem, ZAW 80 
(1968) 1-35: A. ZERTAL, Has Joshua's Altar 
Been Found on Mt. Ebal?, BAR 11 (1985) 
26-43; A. ZERTAL, How Can Kempinski Be 
So Wrong!, BAR 12 (1986) 43,49-53. 


M. J. MULDER 


BAAL-GAD 7; 552 

I. A location on the northern border of 
the allotments of the twelve tribes (Josh 
11:17; 12:7; 13:5). Perhaps Baal should be 
taken as the name of the god and gad as an 
appellative ("Baal is fortune") rather than the 
other way round ('Lord Gad') Gad is 
known both from place names (Migdal-gad) 
and personal names (Gaddi, Gaddiel, Gad- 
diyau) and is best understood as an appel- 
lative, i.e., ‘fortune’. -*Gad as a divine 
name is attested only in the post-exilic 
period (Isa 65:11) and since that time ap- 
pears as a theophoric element in names 
(TWAT 1 [1973] 920-921). 

II. Baal-gad appears in juxtaposition to 
Lebo-hamath (Josh 13:7), the northern bor- 
der of the Land of Canaan. It is described as 
being situated “in the valley of Lebanon” 
(Josh 12:17), “below mount -*Hermon" 
(Josh 13:5), and “in the valley of --Lebanon 
under mount Hermon” (Josh 11:17). The 
valley of -*Lebanon is identified with the 
Beqa‘ of Lebanon and the Hermon is ident- 
ical with Jebel esh-Sheikh, the southern 
peak of the Anti-Lebanon. The apparent dis- 
crepancy between the two descriptions ("in 
the valley of Lebanon” and “below Mount 
Hermon") may be accounted for assuming 
that the author of the descriptions treated the 
Litani river as part of the valley of Lebanon. 
For him, Lebo-hamath marked the northern 
end of the valley and Baal-gad its southem 
end. Baal-gad must be sought north or cast 
of the land of Mizpeh (the Marj-‘Ayyun val- 
ley) (Josh 11:3), along the south-western 


foot of Mount Hermon. It is best located at 
the headwaters of the Hasbani river, near the 
modern town of Hasbaya. 

Baal-gad appears as the opposite extremity 
of Mount Halak (Josh 11:17; 12:7), the south- 
eastern border of the tribal allotment, and 
marks the northern border of the tribal allot- 
ments. It must have been a prominent place, 
situated in a fertile watery region, and may 
well have been a cult place for a local Baal. Its 
location is about 17 km north of Dan, the main 
cult centre of -- Yahweh in the north Israelite 
areas. The relationship of the two cult centres 
remains unknown (sec also Baal toponyms). 

III. Bibliography 
P. W. SKEHAN, Joab's Census: How far 
North (2 Sm 24,6)?, CBQ 31 (1969) 47-48; 
N. NA'AMAN, Borders and Districts in Bibli- 
cal Historiography (Jerusalem 1986) 41-43. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-HAMON xi 553 

I. A location of a plantation of Solo- 
mon which he granted to keepers and made 
highly profitable (Cant 8:11). Its name may 
be homonymous with the place Balamon 
mentioned in Jdt 8:3, but they are two dif- 
ferent sites. The latter is probably located in 
the vicinity of Dothan (possibly Ibleam, 
today Kh. Bel‘ameh). The name Baal-hamon 
is not attested elsewhere in the OT and its 
position remains unknown. 

II. Literally, Baal-hamon means either 
‘Baal of a multitude’ or ‘possessor of 
wealth’. The first interpretation may ostens- 
ibly be compared with the well known di- 
vine title “LorD of hosts” (Yahweh Zeb- 
aoth). However, the literary character of the 
Song points strongly toward the second 
interpretation. Baal-hamon may well have 
been an actual site, but it was selected by 
the author due to its connotation of richness 
and abundance (see also —Baal toponyms). 

HI. Bibliography 
A. ROBERT, Les appendices du Cantique des 
Cantiques (viii 8-14), RB 55 (1948) 171- 
174; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB 7C; 
Garden City 1977) 686-688. 


N. NA'AMAN 


144 


BAAL-HAZOR — BAAL-HERMON 





BAAL-HAZOR sn 5723 

I. A location near the town of 
Ophrah/Ephraim (possibly modem  et- 
Taibiyeh) where Absalom kept his sheep- 
shearers and where he assassinated his half- 
brother Amnon (2 Sam 13:23). [t scems that 
-*Baal should be construed as the name of 
god, i.e., ‘Baal of Hazor’. It is generally 
identified with Jebel el-'Asür, the highest 
mountain of Mount Ephraim (1016 m. 
above sea level), 7 km. north-east of 
-*Bethel. The site is not attested elsewhere 
in the OT and has nothing to do with the 
Hazor mentioned in Neh 11:33. 

ABEL (1924) suggested to read 1 Macc 
9:15 as heós Azórou óros (in place of heds 
Azórtou órous), "as far as mount Hazor", 
identifying it with Baal-hazor. lt is prefer- 
able, however, to assume that already in the 
Hebrew original text a mistake occurred, 
and to read *sdwt ('mountain-slopes"). 

The place where God appeared to Abra- 
ham after his separation from Lot (Gen 
13:14) is called in the Genesis Apocryphon 
by the name Ramath-hazor (IQGenAp 
XXI:8). This town must have been in the 
vicinity of Bethel. The identification of 
Ramath-hazor with Baal-hazor is appealing 
in the light of the well known tendency to 
replace names of negative connotation by 
more neutral appellations. Also, according 
to the Genesis narratives, Abraham stayed 
near Bethel after his separation from Lot. 

II. It is not clear whether Baal-hazor 
was a place of worship for Baal. Defining its 
location by the neighbouring town of 
Ophrah/'Ephraim may indicate that the place 
was of secondary importance. Nor is the ori- 
gin of its name clear. Was it called by the 
name of -»Hadad or Baal of Hazor, the 
major Canaanite city of the second millen- 
nium BCE, by people who migrated thence 
after its destruction and settled in the hill 
country of Ephraim? In that case, no place by 
the name Hazor should be sought in the vicin- 
ity of the mount (see also Baal toponyms). 

Ill. Bibliography 
F. M. ABEL, Topographie des campagnes 
Maccabéennes, RB 33 (1924) 385-387; W. 
F. ALBRIGHT, Ophrah and Ephraim, AASOR 


4 (1924) 124-133; N. AviGAD & Y. YADIN, 
A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the 
Wilderness of Judaea (Jerusalem 1956) 28. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-HERMON 75 573 

I. A location on the northern border of 
the allotments of the twelve tribes (Judg 3:3; 
| Chr 5:23). It scems that -Baal should be 
construed as the name of a god, i.c., ‘Baal 
of -Hermon'. Hermon is identical with 
Jebel esh-Sheikh, the southern peak of the 
Anti-Lebanon (Deut 3:8; 4:48; Josh 12:1, 5; 
Judg 3:3; 1 Chr 5:23). The place to which 
the toponym refers must be sought some- 
where on its slopes. 

II. In the list of people Yahweh left 
within the territory of Canaan appear "the 
Hivites who dwelt on Mount Lebanon, from 
Mount Baal-hermon as far as Lebo-hamath" 
(Judg 3:3). The same borders are defined in 
Josh 13:5 ("from -*Baal-gad below Mount 
Hermon to Lebo-hamath") and Baal-hermon 
is seemingly identical to Baal-gad, a place 
located on the south-western side of 
Hermon. However, | Chr 5:23 describes the 
confines of the eastern half of Manasseh's 
dwelling places thus: "from -*Bashan to 
Baal-hermon, Senir and Mount Hermon". 
Baal-hermon must accordingly be sought on 
the eastern side of Hermon and is possibly 
one of its south-eastern peaks. 

How could we account for the discrep- 
ancy? Some scholars suggest that the text of 
Judg 3:3 is corrupted and should not be 
taken into account. Others suggest that | 
Chr 5:23 is a conglomerate of elements bor- 
rowed from various biblical sources (Deut 
3:9; Josh 12:5; Judg 3:3) and is not a reli- 
able source for topographical research. The 
first seems to be better founded. Baal-her- 
mon was probably a cult place for a local 
Baal, at least in the time of the Chronicler. 
It was located on one of the peaks on the 
eastern slopes of Hermon and was deliber- 
ately selected by the Chronicler to define the 
border of Manasseh, the northernmost 
Transjordanian tribe, in analogy to Baal-gad 
which in the older sources defined the bor- 


145 


BAAL-JUDAH — BAAL MEON 


der of the tribal allotments on the western 
side of Hermon (sce also Baal toponyms). 
III. Bibliography 
B. MaisLER, Untersuchungen zur alten 
Geschichte und Ethnographie Syriens und 
Palästinas (Giessen 1930) 61-62, n. 7; W. 
RuporPH, Chronikbücher (Tübingen 1955) 
49-50; M. WOsr, Untersuchungen zu den 
siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten 
Testaments. 1. Ostjordanland (Wiesbaden 
1975) 30 n. 100; 39. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-JUDAH *irr 553 

I. Baal-judah is an appellation of the 
town of Kiriath-jearim, the element ‘Judah’ 
distinguishes it from other localities called 
by the name Baal (compare byt Ihm yhwdh). 
It was identified at Deir el-'Azhar, a tell 
near modern Abu-ghosh, about 12 km west- 
northwest of Jerusalem. 

If. The place appears only once, in a 
corrupted form, in the introduction to the 
story of the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem 
(2 Sam 6:2). MT has mb‘ly yhwdh (“from 
the citizens of Judah”). However, not only 
does the sending of “all the people, who 
were with him, from the citizens of Judah” 
makes poor sense, but the subsequent 
missSam ("from there") is without antecedent. 
Most versions reflect mb‘ly yhwdh thus indi- 
cating that the corruption in MT is very old. 
LXX? adds afterwards en anabasei and 
LXXE adds en te anabasei tou bounou (“in 
the ascent [mlh] of the hill”). Syr wzi lgb‘ 
agrees with the LXXL. 

|. Chr 13:6 reads b'lih °l qryt y‘rym ?$r 
lyhwdh ("to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim 
which belongs to Judah") 4QSam? and 
Josephus agree. It is clear however that the 
shorter unglossed reading of 2 Sam 6:2 in 
MT and LXX is superior to this version. 

The original text must have read rmb'l 
yhwdh and the versions indicate that the m 
is original (PisaNo 1984:102-103). On the 
basis of the LXX and Syr one may further 
suggest that the word bm‘lh originally 
followed (note the threefold play of words 
mb‘, bm‘th, th‘lwt) and was dropped due to 


haplography. The ascent of the hill makes 
good literary sense since it plays a central 
role in the episode of the retum of the ark 
and Uzzah’s death (vv 6-7). The text of v 2 
may be reconstructed as follows: “And 
David arose and went with all the people 
who were with him from Baal-judah in the 
ascent, to bring up from there the ark of 
- God". 

III. The city of Kiriath-jearim is referred 
to as Kiriath-baal in Josh 15:60 and 18:14 
and as Baalah in Josh 15:9-10 and 1 Chr 
13:6. The narrative about the stay of the ark 
at Kiriath-jearim indicates that a cult place 
of -Yahweh was located on the hill near 
the city (1Sam 7:1; 2 Sam 6:1-4). One may 
suggest that the theophoric element ‘Baal’ in 
the city’s name is a honorific title of 
Yahweh, Lord of the city. Baal-judah is 
probably an appellation meaning ‘Lord (of 
the land) of Judah’ and Kiriath-baal means 
‘city of the Lord’. The designation 'Baalah' 
is either a hypocoristic form or a variant 
name meaning ‘the Lady’. The city was 
apparently a pre-monarchial centre of the 
cult of Yahweh and lost its importance when 
David transferred its most sacred cult object. 
the ark, to Jerusalem. 

LXX for both 2 Sam 6:2 and | Chr 13:6 
has avoided the proper name Baal(ah) 
(PisaNo 1984:103-104). This is part of a 
general tendency and is indicated in other 
toponyms that have the element — Baal (see 
also -*Baal toponyms). 

IV. Bibliography 
R. A. CARLSON, David, the Chosen King 
(Stockholm 1964) 62-63; J. BLENKINSOPP, 
Kiriath-jearim and the Ark, JBL 88 (1969) 
143-156; S. PisaNOo, Additions and Omis- 
sions in the Books of Samuel (Freiburg & 
Góttingen 1984) 101-104; P. K. MCCARTER, 
Il Samuel (AB 8; Garden City 1984) 162- 
163, 168. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-MEON jn 5273 

I. A place in the land of Moab listed 
among the towns of Reuben (Num 32:34; 
Josh 13:17; 1 Chr 5:8; Mesha's inscription). 


146 


BAAL OF PEOR 


It is also known as Beth-baal-meon (Josh 
13:17) and Beth-meon (Jer 48:23). It is 
generally identified with Khirbet Ma‘in, 
about 8 km southwest of Madaba. However, 
no Iron Age remains were found in the 
course of excavations there. Baal-meon's 
exact location has yet to be found. 

Il. Baal-meon was an Israelite town 
which was conquered by Mesha, king of 
Moab, in the third quarter of the ninth cen- 
tury BCE. Mesha rebuilt the town and made 
a reservoir there (lines 9, 30 of his inscrip- 
tion). From that time and until its de- 
struction Baal-meon was a Moabite town 
(Jer 48:23; Ezek 25:9). 

The name Beth-baal-meon indicates that 
the town has a temple dedicated to “the 
Lord/Baal of Meon”. Who was ‘the Lord’ of 
the town? In the light of the analogy to 
Beth-peor (Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Josh 
13:20), where the local manifestation of the 
Baal, Baal of Peor, was worshipped, we 
may assume that Baal-meon was likewise 
the cult place of a local -*Baal, who gave 
his name to the town (see also -Baal topo- 
nyms). 

III. Bibliography 
M. PicciRiLLO, Le antichità bizantine di 
Maʻin e dintomi, Liber Annuus Studii Biblici 
Franciscani 35 (1985) 339-364 (esp. 339- 
340); A. DEARMAN (ed.), Studies in the 
Mesha Inscription and Moab (Atlanta 1989) 
175-176, 225-226; K. A. D. SMELIK, Con- 
verting the Past (OTS 28; Leiden 1992) 63, 
66, 72. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL OF PEOR £2 553 

I. This local god, mentioned only in the 
OT, is associated with the mountain Peor in 
the land of Moab (Num 23:28) and the place 
Beth-Peor (Deut 3:29; 4:46; 34:6; Josh 
13:20). He probably represents there the 
chthonic aspect of the Canaanite god of fer- 
tility, Baal (SpRoNK 1986:231-233). The 
name Peor is related to Heb P'm, ‘open 
wide', which in Isa 5:14 is said of the 
*mouth' of the netherworld (XELLA 1982: 
664-666). According to Num 25 the Israel- 


ites participated in the Moabite cult honour- 
ing this god. This incident is recalled in 
Num 31:16; Deut 4:3; Josh 22:17; Hos 9:10; 
and Ps 106:28 (MULDER 1973:720). 

Il. A connection may be assumed with 
the Canaanite deity Baal as known in Ugar- 
itic mythology. In the cycle of Baal (KTU? 
1.1-6) it is told that in the struggle for do- 
minion Baal is temporarily defeated by 
-'Mot. the god of death. Baal has to de- 
scend into the netherworld to reside with the 
dead. In KTU? 1.5 v:4 this is described as 
Baal going down into the mouth of Mot 
(bph yrd). It was believed that this coincided 
with the yearly withering of nature in 
autumn and winter. In the ritual text KTU? 
1.109 we sec that this had its repercussions 
on the cultic activities. In the offering list 
Baal is mentioned among gods who were 
supposed to be in the netherworld and who 
received their offerings through a hole in the 
ground (l. 19-23) (Spronk 1986:147-148; 
TUAT 1U/3 316-317; DEL OLMO LETE 
1992:183-186). 

HI. Num 25 describes the cult of the 
Baal of Peor as a licentious feast to which 
the men of Israel were seduced by Moabite 
women. In Ps 106:28 attachment to the Baal 
of Peor is specified as ‘eating sacrifices of 
the dead’ (Lewis 1989:167). In later Jewish 
tradition the cult of the Baal of Peor is re- 
lated to the Marzeah (Sifre Num 131 and the 
sixth century cE mosaic map of Palestine at 
Madeba). In the OT Heb marzéah is attested 
in connection with mourning (Jer 16:5-7) 
and excessive feasting (Amos 6:4-7). So it 
unites the different elements of Num 25 and 
Ps 106:28. This is even morc clear in the 
ancient Ugaritic texts about the Marzeah. 
though its connection with the cult of the 
dead remains a matter of dispute (ScHMIDT 
1994:265-266; PARDEE 1996). 

The sexual rites connected with the cult 
of the Baal of Peor have to do with the 
aspect of fertility. As this cult is addressed 
to Baal, who is the god of nature, it is hoped 
to contribute to his bringing new life out of 
death. It can be related to the myth of Baal 
describing how (the bull) Baal during his 
stay in the netherworld makes love to a 


147 


BAAL-PERAZIM 


heifer, mounting her up to cighty cight times 
(KTU? 1.5 v:18-21). 

The name of Peor in itself already points 
to a relation with the cult of the dead, 
especially when it is observed that it shares 
this association with other place names in 
this region east of the Dead Sea (SPRONK 
1986:228-229): Obot (Num 21:10-11; 33: 
43-44), which can be translated as '-"spirits 
of the dcad', Abarim (Num 21:11; 27:12: 
33:44-48; Deut 32:49: Jer 22:20) 'those 
who have crossed (the river of death)’ (cf. 
-*Travellers), and Raphan (1 Macc 5:37), 
which can be related to the -*Rephaim. It is 
also interesting in this connection to note 
that, according to Deut 34:6, Moses was 
buried in the valley opposite Bet-Peor. It is 
added that no one knows the precise place 
of his grave. This has been interpreted in 
midrashic tradition as a “precaution, lest his 
sepulchre became a shrine of idolatrous 
worship” (GOLDIN 1987:223). Indeed, with- 
in this region this would not have been un- 
likely. 

In Num 25:18; 31:16; and Josh 22:17 the 
Baal of Peor is indicated with the name Peor 
only. This may suggest reluctance to use the 
name of a pagan deity. On the other hand, 
the name Peor with its clear association to 
(the mouth of) the netherworld already indi- 
cates the nature of this cult as a way to seek 
contact with divine powers residing there. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. GOLDIN, The Death of Moses: An Exer- 
cise in Midrashic Transposition, Love & 
Death in the Ancient Near East. (FS Marvin 
H. Pope; ed. J. H. Marks & R. M. Good; 
Guildford 1987) 219-225; T. J. Lewis, Cults 
of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit 
(HSM 39; Atlanta 1989); M. J. MULDER, 
ba‘al, TWAT | (1973) 706-727; G. DEL 
OLmo LETE, La religión Cananea según la 
litúrgia de Ugarit (AulOrSup 3; Sabadell 
1992); D. PARDEE, Marzihu, Kispu, and the 
Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minimalist View, 
Ugarit, Religion and Culture (FS J. C. L. 
Gibson; UBL; ed. N. Wyatt et al., Münster 
1996) 273-287; B. B. SCHMIDT, Israel's 
Beneficent Dead (FAT 11; Tübingen 1994); 
K. SPRONK, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient 


Israel and in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 
219; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1986); P. XELLA, Il 
culto dei morti nell'Antico Testamento: tra 
teologia a storia della religione, Religioni e 
civiltà. Scritti in memoria di Angelo Brelich 
(Bari 1982) 645-666. 


K. SPRONK 


BAAL-PERAZIM (375-992 

I. A location south of Jerusalem, on the 
way to Bethlehem, where David won his 
first. victory over the Philistines (2 Sam 
5:18-20; 1 Chr 14:9-11). In the story the 
naming of the place is assigned to David 
and explained thus: “Yahweh broke (pdras) 
through my enemies before me, like a burst- 
ing flood (peres máyim)" (v 20). Since the 
name Baal-perazim is directly combined 
with the divine help of -> Yahweh, it is clear 
that the element ‘Baal’ was understood by 
the author as a honorific title of Yahweh 
(compare Hos 2:18). Whether the site had a 
cult place for Yahweh is not clear. Its name 
should best be translated ‘Lord of breaches’ 
or even ‘Lord of (divine) outburst’. 

II. The Philistine onslaught apparently 
antedated the conquest of Jerusalem by 
David and was conducted from north to 
south, penetrating via the Valley of Reph- 
aim to Bethlchem, David's ancestral town (2 
Sam 23:13-17). Baal-perazim must be 
sought on the way to Bethlehem, and might 
be identified with the Iron Age I site 
excavated near modern Giloh. The site is 
located on the summit of a prominent ridge 
overlooking the Valley of -Rephaim and is 
a reasonable candidate for Baal-perazim. 

I. Baal-perazim is called mount 
Perazim (har pérdsim) in Isa 28:21: "For the 
Lorp will rise up as on Mount Perazim, he 
will be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon”. 
The prophet alludes to David's two victor- 
ious battles against the Philistines related in 
2 Sam 5:17-25 and 1 Chr 14:8-16: the one 
waged at MounuBaal Perazim and the 
second waged in the valley near Gibeon. By 
interchanging the nouns, the author deliber- 
ately avoids the combination of Yahweh 
with a place whose name has the clement 


148 


BAAL-SHALISHA — 


Baal (see also Baal toponyms). 
IV. Bibliography 

G. DALMAN, Orte und Wege Jesu (Gütersloh 
1924) 20-21; A. Mazar, Giloh: An Early 
Israclite Settlement Site near Jerusalem, /EJ 
31 (1981) 1-36 (esp. 31-32); N. NA'AMAN, 
The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in Joshua and in 
History, From Nomadism to Monarchy, 
Archaeological and Historical Aspects of 
Early Israel (ed. I. Finkelstein & N. Na’a- 
man; Jerusalem 1994) 251-254. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-SHALISHA nJo3 523 

I. A town from which a man came to 
Elisha bringing "bread of the first fruits, 
twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of 
grain" (2 Kgs 4:42; compare Lev 2:11-12. 
14-16). Elisha stayed then at Gilgal, near 
Jericho. According to Rabbi Meir, there was 
no other Palestinian place where fruits so 
easily come to fruition as in Baal-shalisha 
(Tosefta Sanh. 2,9; bSanh. 12a). Thus, Baal- 
shalisha must be sought either in the Jordan 
Valley or on the slopes overlooking Gilgal. 

II. An important clue for the location of 
Baal-shalisha is the land of Shalisha, one of 
the four lands traversed by Saul while 
searching for his father’s lost asses (1 Sam 
9:4-5). Unfortunately, the description is 
unclear and no identification has gained 
scholarly acceptance. Since the land of 
Shaalim is doubtless located near modern et- 
Taiyibeh, the land of Shalisha may be lo- 
cated to its east, on the eastern slopes of the 
hill country. It is impossible to suggest a 
definite location for Baal-shalisha, but its 
identification with Kh. Marjameh (KALLAI 
1971:191-196) is unlikely since it is situated 
too far north. 

III. LXX rendered the name Baith- 
Sar(e)isa. This is part of the tendency of the 
LXX to avoid the element Baal. Eusebius 
likewise rendered it Baithsarisa and located 
it fifteen miles north of Diospolis (Lydda). It 
is clear that he was misled by the Greek 
rendering. Thus, all suggested identifications 
for Baal-shalisha in the area of Lydda (e.g., 
Kh. Sirisya, Kafr Thilth) must be abandoned 


BAAL-SHAMEM 


(see also Baal toponyms). 
IV. Bibliography 

W. F. ALBRIGHT, Ramah of Samuel, 
AASOR 4 (1924) 115-117; Z. Karlar, Baal 
Shalisha and Ephraim, Bible and Jewish 
History. Jacob Liver Memorial Volume (ed. 
B. Uffenheimer; Tel Aviv 1971) 191-196 
(Hebrew); D. EDELMAN, Saul’s Joumcy 
through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel's Ramah 
(1 Sam. 9:4-5; 10:2-5), ZDPV 104 (1988) 
44-58. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-SHAMEM Cn337222, poya 

I. The title ‘Lord of Heavens’, used for 
the various supreme gods in Syro-Palestine, 
Anatolia and Mesopotamia during the 2nd 
millennium BCE, later became the name of a 
specific deity venerated throughout the 
Semitic world from the Ist millennium BCE 
until the first four centuries of the Christian 
era. St. Augustin (Quaest. Hept. VII 16) re- 
fers to him as dominus coeli. 

II. The earliest Phoenician attestation of 
Baal-Shamem comes from the building- 
inscription from the lOth century BCE of 
king Yehimilk in Byblos (KA/ 4). Here 
Baal-Shamem is named before the ‘Lady of 
Byblos’ and ‘the assembly of the gods of 
Byblos’; by implication he represents the 
summit of the local panthcon. This is also 
true for the Karatepe-inscription dating from 
the last decades of the 8th century BCE (KA/ 
26 A III 18), where he heads a sequence of 
gods, being named before —'El, Creator of 
the Earth’. In the Luwian version of this 
bilingual inscription, the ‘Weather-god of 
Heaven' corresponds to Baal-Shamem. In 
the treaty between Baal I of Tyre and the 
Assyrian king Esarhaddon from 675/4 BCE 
dBa-al-sa-me-me is also in the first position, 
before Baal-malage and Baal-sapinu (SAA 
2,5 1V:10). Later, in the Hellenistic period, a 
temple at Umm el-Amed is dedicated to 
Baal-Shamem (KA/ 18). In Greek inscrip- 
tions from this region he is called Zeus 
hypsistos, ‘Highest ~Zeus’, Zeus megistos 
keraunios, 'Magnific lightning Zeus’ (CIS II 
3912) or Theos hagios ouranios ‘Holy 


149 


BAAL-SHAMEM 


heavenly god’ (name of a temple in the 
Phoenician town Qede$/Kadasa). In Cyprus 
a Phoenician inscription mentions a priest of 
Baal-Shamem (RES 1519b); in Carthage, the 
cult of the god Baal-Shamem existed (CIS I 
464; 4874): a votive-inscription (C/S 1 3778 
= KAI 78,2) mentions his name first and 
foremost, even before the prominent gods 
Tinnit and Baal-Hamon; cf. also C/S I 139 = 
KAI 64,1 from Sardinia. In one of the minor 
phrases in Punic speech in Plautus’ Poen- 
ulus (vers 1027) bal samen is mentioned in 
an uncertain context (M. SZNYCER, Les Pas- 
sages puniques en transcription latine dans 
le “Poenulus” de Plaute [Paris 1967] 144). 

The cosmogony and theogony of 
Sanchuniaton, transmitted to us by Philo of 
Byblos (through Eusebius of Caesarea), 
mentions that previous generations in times 
of extreme drought entreated the sun for 
help. "whom they take for the single god. 
the lord of the heaven named Beelsamen. 
This is the Lord of the Heaven among the 
Phoinikes, Zeus among the Greeks" (Euseb- 
ius, Praep. Evang. 1 10,7 = FGH III C 790, 
F 2,7). This late source, dating from Hel- 
lenistic times, points to the character of the 
god Baal-Shamem, showing him to be the 
supreme god with solar features—who, 
when invoked because of drought, took on 
aspects of a weathergod, too. 

Baal-Shamem was particulary venerated 
in the Aramaic kingdom Hamath in North- 
em Syria, and later on in many places 
throughout Aramaic-speaking regions. The 
inscription. of Zakkur, king of Hamath, 
written around 800 BCE, is the earliest ref- 
erence and depicts b'[imyn (this being the 
Aramaic orthography) as the deity of the 
state of Hamath and the personal god of the 
king (KA/ 202 A 3.11.13. B 23). Again, he 
is mentioned at the top of the pantheon, the 
gods Iluwer, Sams and Sahr being listed 
after him, which demonstrates that his char- 
acter is not restricted to a specific function 
as weathergod or sungod in this period. 

The next source, in which Baal-Shamem 
is referred to, is the famous Adon-letter 
from ca. 600 BCE (KA/ 266), where he is 
called upon in the greeting-formula after the 


'(Lord[?]) of the heavens and the earth’. The 
boundary-inscription of Gözne (KAI 259), 
dated in the Sth-4th century BCE, invokes 
him before the Sun and the —Moon in the 
curse-formula. 

In the Aramaic texts from Egypt of the 
Achaemenid period Baal-Shamem is not 
mentioned in the archives from Elephantine. 
But Proverb 13 in Ahiqgar, transmitted on 
papyri from this colony, makes an allusion 
to this god as the Holy Lord who estab- 
lished the —wisdom for the people (J. M. 
LINDENBERGER, The Aramaic Proverbs of 
Ahigar [Baltimore/London 1983] 68-70; 
LiNDENBERGER, The Gods of Ahiqar. UF 14 
[1982] 114-116). 

In inscriptions the Nabataeans invoked 
Baal-Shamem as the ‘Lord of the World’ 
(mr *Im?) to deter grave-robbers from 
Madain Saleh. The Nabatean-speaking tribes 
in Hauran possessed a well-established cult 
of Baal-Shamem, concentrated mainly at the 
holy complex of Si'a, southeast of Kanatha, 
a pilgrims’ sanctuary consisting of three 
temples and some other buildings; this cultic 
centre was erected between 33/32 and 2/1 
BCE and, according to the latest inscription, 
was still in use in 41/54 cr. Here Baal- 
Shamem was worshipped along with the 
highest Nabataean god Dusares who pos- 
sessed a temple on a lower terrace in the 
same holy precinct (H. C. Burer, Publ. 
Princeton Arch. Expedition to Syria, II A 6: 
Si [Sceia] [1916]). 

In Palmyra, Baal-Shamem is one of the 
prominent gods along with Bel. He resided 
in a temple built in Corinthian style at the 
southern part of the main stoa of the city, 
which was constructed in 131 CE; along with 
Aglibol. the moongod, and Malakbel, the 
sungod, he formed a celestial triad and bore 
the epithet of a 'Lord of the world’ (mdre 
‘alma@). 

At Hatra, in Northern Mesopotamia, 
Baal-Shamem (various spellings bl§myn, 
b'$myn and b'imn) had his own sanctuary 
(the little *Hofhaustempe! Ill, building in- 
scription F. VATTIONI, Le iscrizioni di Hatra 
[1981] No. 49) and therefore his own cult in 
the 2nd/3rd century ce. He is sometimes 


150 


BAAL-TAMAR 


named in inscriptions with the title nl? 
'king' or quh dy r*h ‘Creator of the Earth’ 
(Hatra 23 = KA/ 244:3) but is always 
followed by the local triad Maran, Martan 
and Barmarén; cf. the personal name 
brb'l$myn Hatra 291,1; 314. In Hatra Baal- 
Shamem did not play as prominent a role as 
in the pantheon of Palmyra. According to 
Isaak Antiochenus, Baal-Shamem was ven- 
erated as ‘chief of the gods” in a cultic pro- 
cession at Nisibis/Nuseybin during the 4th 
century CE (P. BEDJAN, Homiliae WS. 
Isaaci Syri Antiocheni 1 (1903] 589, 16ff.). 
Besides this evidence, personal names exist 
such as brb'sm(y)n in Syriac inscriptions (F. 
VaTTIONI, Aug 13 (1973) 279ff., No. 51, 
2.11.20; 69,8) in Latin Barbaesomen, 
Barbaessamen (Dura Europos V/\ [1959] 
100. III-Vf.3;: 100, XXX11,32) and in Greck 
barbesamen (F. Cumont. Fouilles de 
Doura-Europos [1926] 48). 

A statue of Baal-Shamem (Barsamin) was 
transported by the king Tigranes of Armenia 
(first half of the Ist century BCE) from 
Northern Mesopotamia and carried to the 
temple of T'ordan in Ekeleac in Upper 
Armenia (today Eastern Anatolia; Moses 
von Chorene Il 14) during a military cam- 
paign. 

Also the Manichaean tradition has a rep- 
resentation of a sort of sungod named Bal- 
samos (i.e., Baal-Shamem), who bears the 
epithet ho megistos angelos tou phótos ‘the 
greatest angel of light" (Kólner Mani-Kodex 
49,3-5, cf. A. HENRICHS & L. KOENEN, 
ZPE 19 [1975] 48-49), this being the last 
mention of the formerly highly estcemed 
supreme god. 

From this survey of the history of Baal- 
Shamem's worship by Semitic peoples it is 
obvious that both his character and appear- 
ance have been subject to change. In the 
beginning he is a sort of high-ranked weather- 
god, therefore a god of farmers and city- 
dwellers alike. Later on, he develops many 
more solar features in accordance with a 
general kind of 'solarisation' in Hellenistic 
Syria, and his cult is also carried to 'caravan- 
cities' such as Palmyra and Hatra. 

HI. Since Baal-Shamem appears rela- 


tively late in the vicinity of Palestine, it is 
no surprise that there are no references to 
him in the classical books of the OT. Mere 
allusions such as Ps 104:1-4 or Hosea 6:3 to 
a kind of weather-god cannot prove any 
argument regarding this god. But in the 
conflict following the Seleucid policy 
against Juda, some passages in the book of 
Daniel may be interpreted as allusions to the 
Baal-Shamem. e.g. happeSa‘ £ómém (Dan 
8:13); 3iqqügim mésSomém and Siqqüs Somem 
(9:27 cf. 11:31: 12:11). In these references 
the term s6mém could refer to the god, occa- 
sionally with a maledicant epithet bearing 
on the -Zeus Ouranios of Antiochos IV; 
but all these allusions are debated and far 
from being evident. 
IV. Bibliography 

J. BREMMER, Marginalia Manichaica, ZPE 
39 (1980) 29-30; H. J. W. Druvers, Baal 
Shamem, de heer van de hemel (Assen 
1971); R. Du Mesnit Du Buisson, MUS/ 
38 (1962) 143-160; O. EIssFELDT, Ba’al- 
samem und Jahwe, ZAW 57 (1939) 1-31 (= 
KS 2 [1963] 171-198); G. Garsini, Gune 
Bel Balsamen, Studi magrebini 12 (1980) 
89-92; K. IsHKOL-KEROVPIAN, Barsamin, 
WobMyth 4, 104-105; H. Nieur, JHWH in 
die Rolle des BaalSamem, Ein Gott Allein 
(eds. W. Dietrich & M. A. Klopfenstein; 
Freiburg/Góttingen 1994) 307-326; R. A. 
ODEN, Ba'al Samem and El, CBQ 39 (1977) 
457-473; E. OLavarri, Altar de Zeus - 
Ba'alshamin, procedente de Amman, Memo- 
rias de Historia Antigua 4 (Oviedo 1980) 
197-210; H. SEYRIG, Le culte de Bêl et de 
Ba’lshamem, Syria 14 (1933) 238-282; J. 
STarcky, Le sanctuaire de Baal à Palmyre 
d’après les inscriptions, RArch (1974) 83- 
90; J. TuBACH, /m Schatten des Sonnen- 
gottes (Wiesbaden 1986) 43-45 [& lit] and 
passim; F. VaTTIONI, Aspetti del culto del 
Signore dei Cieli, Aug 12 (1972) 479-515; 
13 (1973) 37-73. 


W. RÓLLIG 


BAAL-TAMAR ^n 553 
I. A location north of Gibeah (Tell el- 
Fül) where the Israelite troops stood firm 


151 


BAAL-ZAPHON 


against the pursuing Benjaminites after dis- 
tancing them from their home town (Judg 
20:33). Eusebius states that in his day there 
still existed a Beth-tamar near Gibeah, but 
does not specify its location. Since the 
second Israelite force which encamped west 
of Geba (modern Jeba*) conquered Gibeah 
through a surprise attack, it is clear that 
Baal-tamar must be sought north of the 
Geba road which starts near Ramah (modern 
er-Ram). Its exact location remains un- 
known. 

II. The ‘date palm’ (tdmndr) is a common 
element in biblical toponymy, particularly in 
the Judean desert and the Arabah (c.g. 
Tamar, Hazazon-tamar, and the descriptive 
name ‘the city of palm trees’ for Jericho and 
Tamar). In addition to Baal-tamar, a second 
hill country toponym with the element 
‘palm’ is known, i.e., ‘the palm (ömer) of 
Deborah’ (Judg 4:5). It must be sought in 
the vicinity of Bethel, in the hill country 
of Ephraim. A prominent date palm must 
have stood at both sites and, like similar 
remarkable trees in ancient Palestine, was 
regarded as sacred and attracted cult. 
Whether Baal-tamar was sacred to -+Yahweh 
or to —Baal cannot be established (see also 
-*Baal toponyms). 

III. Bibliography 
M. Astour, Place Names, RSP II, 335; H. 
ROSEL, Studien zur Topographie der Kriege 
in den Büchern Josua und Richter, ZDPV 92 
(1976) 31-46 (esp. 43-44); S. ELAN, Der 
Heilige Baum - ein Hinweis auf das Bild 
ursprünglicher Landschaft in Palästina, 
MDOG 111 (1979) 89-98. 


N. NA'AMAN 


BAAL-ZAPHON [p2s 552 

I. Baal-zaphon literally means the ‘lord 
of (mount) -*Zaphon' and it is a designation 
of the Ugaritic god Baal. Due to mount 
Zaphon's image as the cosmic mountain par 
excellence in Northwest-Semitic religions, 
the name ‘Baal-zaphon’ was transferred to 
further Baal-sanctuaries outside Ugarit. In 
the OT Baal-zaphon is a place name in 
northern Egypt where Israel rested during 


the exodus (Exod 14:2, 9; Num 33:7). 

II. In Ugarit the divine name Baal- 
zaphon only occurs in ritual texts (KTU 
1.39:10; 1.41:33 [rest.]; 1.46:12 [rest.].14; 
1.47:5; 1.65:10; 1.87:36 [rest]: 1.109:5 
[rest.].9.29.32-33; 1.112:22-23; 1.118:4; 
1.130:22; 1.148:2 [rest.].10.27; RIH 78/4:5 
[Syria 57 (1980) 353-354, 370]), in letters 
(e.g. KTU 2.23:19; 2.44:10) and in Akkad- 
ian texts from Ugarit (references in RÓLLIG 
1972-75:242). On the other hand mythol- 
ogical texts never speak of Baal-zaphon. By 
using this divine name the lists of the gods 
and offering texts make a distinction 
between Baal-zaphon and several other gods 
called Baal who were also entitled to receive 
offerings (KTU 1.47:5-11; 1.118:4-10; 1.148: 
2-4; cf. RS 20.24,4-10 (Ug S (1968) 44-45, 
379). In several ritual texts Baal-zaphon 
and Zaphon stand in parallelism to Baal of 
Ugarit (e.g. KTU 1.41:33-35, 42; 1.65:10- 
11; 1.87:36-38; 1.109:9-11; 1.112:22-23; 
1.130:22-25), thus indicating distinct mani- 
festations of the god Baal. The Akkadian 
equivalent of Baal-zaphon is €i be-el 
YUR.SAG Ha-zi (RS 2024:4 [e.g. Ug 5 
(1968) 44-45, 379]), the Hurrian equivalent 
is tb hlbà (e.g. KTU 1.42:10; cf. E. La- 
ROCHE, Ug 5 (1968] 520). 

The oldest representation of Baal-zaphon 
in smiting posture and standing on two 
mountains is preserved on an Syrian seal of 
the 18th cent. BCE from Tell el-Daba‘a in 
Egypt (BietaK 1990; Diskstra 1991). An 
illustration of Baal-zaphon is given by a 
votive stela found in the Baal-temple of 
Ugarit (ANEP 485; Yon 1991:328 fig. 8a). 
This stela is dedicated to Baal-zaphon by an 
Egyptian officer, Mami, and it shows the 
dedicator venerating Baal-zaphon. The god 
is represented standing before a cult stand, 
wearing a crown and holding a sceptre in 
his left hand. An additional Egyptian 
inscription identifies the donator and the 
god. The stela was brought from Egypt to 
Ugarit, perhaps as the fulfillment of a vow 
made by an Egyptian officer, to the temple 
of Baal-zaphon in Ugarit; because Baal- 
zaphon was regarded as the protector of 
navigation. Baal's protection of navigation 


152 


BAAL-ZAPHON 


is also alluded to in Pap. Sallier IV vs 1,5-6 
(ANET 249-250). This aspect of Baal- 
zaphon is also indicated by some stone 
anchors found in the precinct of the Baal- 
temple as votive-offerings to Baal-zaphon. 
An Egyptian stela from the time of Ramses 
II and perhaps devoted to Baal-zaphon was 
found in the Hauran (RSO 40 [1965] 197- 
200). In a 14th century letter (KTU 2.23) 
sent by the king of Ugarit to the Pharaoh, 
Baal-zaphon figures as the tutelary deity of 
the kingdom and king of Ugarit, whereas, 
according to this letter, Amun fulfills this 
role for Egypt. 

Outside the Northwest-Semitic realm 
Baal-zaphon was venerated under the name 
~»Zeus Kasios. The second element of this 
Greek divine name is derived from Hurrian 
Mount Hazzi. Sanctuaries of Zeus Kasios 
are attested in Egypt, Athens, Epidauros, 
Delos, Corfu, Sicily and Spain. The last 
mention of Zeus Kasios, on a Latin-Greek 
bilingual text of the 3rd cent. CE found in 
Germany, was perhaps written by a Syrian 
soldier serving in the Roman army (CIL 
XIII 2,1 no. 7330). 

In the first millenium BCE, Baal-zaphon is 
mentioned in three Assyrian texts. The 
annals of Tiglathpilesar III (ARAB 1:274- 
275) and of Sargon I] (ARAB 11:13) speak 
of a mountain Baal-zaphon situated on the 
mediterranean coast. In the treaty of Asar- 
haddon with King Baal of Tyre, Baal- 
zaphon ranks behind the gods -*Baal shamem 
and Baal malage. These three gods have 
power over the storm and the sea (SAA 2 no. 
5 iv:IO"). 

The veneration of Baal-zaphon in Tyre is 
also demonstrated by a Phoenician amulet 
from the region of Tyre which invokes the 
blessing of Baal-hamon and Baal-zaphon, 
thus reflecting the Hurrian parallelism of 
mount Amanus (?) and mount Zaphon 
(BonpREUIL 1986). The offering tariff of 
Marseille (KA/ 69) mentions in its first linc 
the "temple of Baal-zaphon". As the text 
stems from Carthage this is an indication 
that there was a temple of Baal-zaphon in 
Carthage. There is another reference to 
Baal-zaphon in a 6th cent. BCE papyrus of 


Tahpanes (KA/ 50:2-3), according to which 
Baal-zaphon is the supreme god of the 
Phoenician colony of Tahpanes. In papyrus 
Amherst 8:3 and 13:15-16 Baal is men- 
tioned together with mount Zaphon. 

III. The appearance of the place name 
Baal-zaphon in the context of the exodus 
narratives (Exod 14:2, 9; Num 33:7) caused 
EISSFELDT (1932) to argue that it was ori- 
ginally Baal-zaphon who had saved Israel 
from Egypt. Only secondarily was this vic- 
tory ascribed to Yahweh. This argument 
however has nearly always been rejected 
because Baal-zaphon in Exod 14:2, 9 and 
Num 33:7 is only a topographical indication 
without religio-historical relevance. lt is 
only found in the Priestly Code where it is 
to be judged as part of a learned construc- 
tion of the exodus itinerary. 

IV. Bibliography 
A. ADLER, Kasios 2, PW 10 (1919) 2265- 
2267; W. F. ALBRIGHT, Baal-Zephon, FS A. 
Bertholet (Tübingen 1950) 1-14; M. BIETAK, 
Zur Herkunft des Seth von Avaris, Agypten 
und Levante 1 (1990) 9-16; *C. BONNET, 
Typhon et Baal Saphon, Studia Phoenicia 5 
(OLA 22; Leuven 1987) 101-143: BONNET, 
Baal Saphon Dictionnaire de la Civilisation 
Phénicienne et Punique (Tumhout 1992) 60- 
61; P. BoRDREUIL, Attestations inédites de 
Melqart, Baal Hamon et Baal Saphon à Tyr, 
Studia Phoenicia 4 (Namur 1986) 77-86; P. 
CHUvIN & J. Yovorre, Documents relatifs 
au culte pélusien de Zeus Casios, RArch 
(1986) 41-63; A. B. Cook, Zeus. A Study in 
Ancient Religion 1/2 (Cambridge 1925) 981, 
984-986; M. DuksTRA, The Weather-God 
on Two Mountains, UF 23 (1991) 127-140; 
J. EBACH, Kasion, LdA 3 (1980) 354; O. 
EissrELDT, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und 
der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs. Meer 
(BRA 1; Halle 1932); EissrELDT, Ba'al 
Saphon von Ugarit und Amon von Agypten, 
FF 36 (1962) 338-340 = KS 4 (Tiibingen 
1968) 53-57; W. FaurH, Das Kasion-Gc- 
birge und Zeus Kasios, UF 22 (1990) 105- 
118: H. GrsE, Die Religionen Altsyriens, 
RAAM (Stuttgart 1970) 119-133; M. Goro, 
Baal-Zefon, NBL | (1991) 225-226; *R. 
HILLMANN, Wasser und Berg (diss. Halle 


153 


BAAL ZEBUB 


1965) 22-35, 76-87; A. KAPELRUD, Baal in 
the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen 1952) 
57-58; T. KLAUSER, Baal-Kasios, RAC 1 
(1950) 1076-1077; K. Kocu, Hazzi-Saf6n- 
Kasion. Die Geschichte eines Berges und 
sciner Gottheiten, Religionsgeschichtliche 
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nord- 
syrien und dem Alten Testament (ed. B. 
Janowski, K. Koch & G. Wilhelm; OBO 
129; Fribourg-Göttingen 1993) 171-223; K. 
Kocn. Ba‘al Sapon, Ba‘al Samem and the 
Critique of Israels’s Prophets, Ugarit and 
the Bible (eds. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Cur- 
tis & J. F. Healey; UBL 11; Münster 1994) 
159-174; E. Lipitsxi, [28 sipén TWAT 6 
(1987-89) 1093-1102; LipiNski, Dieux et 
Déesses de l'univers phénicien et punique, 
Studia Phoenicia 14 (OLA 64; Leuven 
1995) 244-251; S. I. L. Norin, Er spaltete 
das Meer (ConB 9; Lund 1977) 21-40, 46- 
51; M. H. Pore, Baal Sapan, WbMyth 1/1 
(19832) 257-258; W. ROLLIG, Hazzi, RLA 4 


(1972-75) 241-242; A. Sarac, Zets 
Kaotog, BCH 46 (1922) 160-189; R. 


STADELMANN, Syrisch-paldstinensische Gott- 
heiten in Ägypten (Leiden 1967) 27-47; 
STADELMANN Baal, LdA 1 (1975) 590-591; 
P. vaN ZuL, Baal (AOAT 10; Kevelaer- 
Neukirchen Vluyn 1972) 332-336; M. YON, 
Stéles en pierre, Arts et industries de la pierre 
(ed. M. Yon; RSOu 6; Paris 1991) 284-288. 


H. NIEHR 


BAAL ZEBUB 2123 792 

I. The name Baal Zebub occurs only 
four times in the OT (2 Kgs 1:2.3.6.16). In 2 
Kgs l an accident of Ahaziah, the king of 
Israel, and his consulting the oracle of the 
god Baal Zebub of Ekron is described. For 
etymological reasons, Baal Zebub must be 
considered a Semitic god; he is taken over 
by the Philistine Ekronites and incorporated 
into their local cult. Zebub is the collective 
noun for ‘flies’, also attested in Ugaritic (W. 
H. vAN Soipt, UF 21 [1989] 369-373: 
dbb). Akkadian  (zubbu),  post-biblical 
Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic (8223°%), Syriac 
(debbaba) and in other Semitic languages. 

II. On the basis zebub, ‘flies’, the name 


of the god was interpreted as ‘Lord of the 
flies’; it was assumed that he was a god who 
could cause or cure diseases. F. BAETHGEN 
(Beiträge | zur semitischen  Religionsge- 
schichte [1888] 25) expressed the view that 
the flies related to. Baal were seen as a 
symbol of the solar heat; they were sacred 
animals. In carly Israel, flies were con- 
sidered a source of nuisance (Isa 7:18; Qoh 
10:1). TANGBERG (1992) interpreted the 
name Baal-zebub as “Baal (statue) with the 
flies (ornamented)" analogous to the Mes- 
opotamian 'Nintu with the flies’. This can 
be compared with the fact that the Greeks 
called --Zeus as healer andpurog (Clemens 
Alexandrinus, Protrepticus 11,38,4; Paus- 
anias, Graeciae Descriptio V 14,1) and that 
they knew a ïñpœs pviaypog (Pausanias, VI 
26,7: mainly concerning the driving away of 
the flies with sacrifices). 

The LXX implies by its rendering Baad 
puta (Baal the fly) the same wording as the 
MT (cf. Josephus, Antiquitates 1X,2,1: 


. Axxápov 6ceóg Muta. Vg: Beelzebub). In 


contradistinction the translation of Sym- 
machus as well as the NT manuscripts have 
the forms BeeGepouA respectively Beel- 
GeBovA (Matt 10:25; 12:24.27; Mark 3:22: 
Luke 11:15.18-19). This rendering of the 
divine name might rely on a different text- 
form or be based on oral tradition. Besides, 
Matt 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15 use the 
apposition apywv tav Saipoviwv ‘head of 
the demons’. The epithet Zabulus (Ass. 
Mos. 10:1) has no connection with Beed- 
GeBovA. Greck d1a- is frequently replaced 
by Latin za-, therefore Zabulus can be inter- 
preted as a rendition of AtaBoAog. Where 
one meets in the NT versions the wording 
Beelzebub, undoubtedly a later correction 
according to the canonical text of the OT 
(LXX) exists (so already BaupissiN 1897; 
further L. Gaston, 7hZ 18 [1962] 251). 

The view that Bee2.GepouA is the original 
form of the name of the deity in 2 Kgs 1 is 
further suggested by the titles zb! b'| and 
more frequently zb! b'] "arg appearing in 
Ugaritic texts. Even before the excavations . 
at Ras Shamra, Movers (1841:260) and 
GuvaRD (1878) guessed Baal Zebul to be 


154 


BAAL ZEBUB 


the name’s original form. They explained 
the notion zébiil, however, after its occur- 
rence in the OT (Deut 26:15; Isa 63:15; Ps 
68:6) or otherwise by referring to the Akk 
*zabal, ‘residence’ or ‘lofty house’ (though, 
in fact, there is no such word in Akkadian). 
CHEYNE (1899) asserted that the name Baal- 
zebub most likely was "...a contemptuous 
uneuphonic Jewish modification of the true 
name, which was probably Baal-zebul, *lord 
of the high house' [cf. 1 Kgs 8:13]". Simi- 
larly GASTON (7ThZ 18 (1962] 251) under- 
stood the notion as referring to [heavenly 
and earthly} residence. 

Reviving another explication, FENSHAM 
(1967:361-364) tried to interpret the Hebrew 
noun 2i2i as derived from Ugaritic dbb 
which he understood as 'flame' (cf. Heb 
fábib). He rendered 2121. 222 by 'Baal the 
~Flame’ adducing the fire motif in the 
Elijah tales as corroborating evidence. Yet 
his explanation fails to convince; the Ugar- 
itic noun dbb is not clearly explained, and it 
is questionable whether there are religio-his- 
torical parallels. The NT. moreover, shows 
that thc root is zb/, not zbb. Equally uncon- 
vincing is Mulder's proposal to explain 7127 
on the basis of Ug zbl ‘illness’ (Ba‘al in het 
Oude Testament [1962] 142-144); the Ugar- 
itic word for illness is zbln. Above all it 
reckons, despite the statement in the NT, 
with the consonantal stock zbb. The same 
doubts are to be raised against MULDER's 
explanation of b‘/ zbl by referring to Ug zbl, 
‘illness’ particularly because this noun runs 
zbin. 

Relatively soon after the findings at Ras 
Shamra, ALBRIGHT (1936) construed Ug zbl 
as passive participle zabül. He derived the 
form from the verbal root zBL—known in 
Akkadian and Arabic—and surmised the 
nominal meaning ‘prince’ or ‘the clevated 
one’. The meaning fits with the frequent 
occurrence of zbl as a title for gods. This 
interpretation is widely accepted (‘prince’, 
‘princely state’ or ‘princeship’) and it was 
included in HALAT (250). 

Modifications and new readings have 
been proposed since. J. C. DE Moor (UF 1 
[1969] 188) rejected ALBRIGHT's explana- 


tion (1936) of the verbal form as passive 
participle *zabulu and read *ziblu, "his 
Highness'. W. vox SopEN (UF 4 [1972] 
159) vocalized the noun zubül[um] referring 
to zubultum which is perhaps the title of the 
Ugaritic ‘princess’ as witnessed in two 
Akkadian documents from Mari. DIETRICH 
& Loretz (1980) proved that the epithet zb/ 
b‘l ars has the meaning ‘prince. lord of the 
underworld’. They confirmed ba'al zébüb to 
be an intentional misspelling of b'/ zbl *Baal 
the prince’, a chthonic god able to help in 
cases of illness. It may be added that this 
fact confinns Ugaritic incantations in which 
Baal is invoked to drive away the demon of 
disease (RIH 1.16, 1-3: cf. TUAT 2 [1986- 
89] 335 and ARTU 183; perhaps also KTU 
1.82:38; cf. TUAT 2, 339 [Di£gTRICH & Lo- 
RETZ 1980]) The NT obviously preserved 
the correct form of the name (DIETRICH & 
Loretz 1980:392). Likewise A. S. KAPEL- 
RUD (Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts [1952] 
60); E. JENNI (BHH 1 [1962] 175-178.) and 
H. Gese (RAAM 122) recognize in b'l zbb 
an intentional deformation of the original b'l 
zbl. L K. HANDY (UF 20 [1988] 59) finally 
proposes to translate the noun as ‘ruler’, 
because zb/ designates a person who is gov- 
eming or ruling. 

Consequently Masoretic b'| zbwb of 2 
Kgs 1:2-3.6.16 is to be emended to b‘l zbwi 
which is to be rendered ‘Baal the Prince’. 
Most probably, the meaning of this god in 
the Syrian-Palestine area did not essentially 
differ from what can be deduced from the 
Ras Shamra texts though for a more accu- 
rate conception the data do not suffice. 

HI. Bibliography 
W. F. ALBRIGHT, Zabûl Yam and Thâpit 
Nahar in the Combat between Baal and the 
Sea, JPOS 16 (1936) 17-20; W. W. Graf 
BAUDISSIN, Beelzebub (Beelzebul), RE 2 
(1897) 514-516; T. K. CHEYNE, Baalzebub, 
EncBibl | (1899) 407-408.; M. DiETRICH & 
O. Loretz, Die Ba‘al-Titel bY ars und aliy 
qrdm, UF 12 (1980) 391-393; F. C. Frn- 
SHAM, A possible Explanation of the Name 
Baal-Zebub of Ekron, ZAW 79 (1967) 36I- 
364; S. GuvARD, Remarques sur le mot 
assyrien zabal et sur l'expression biblique 


155 


BACCHUS 


bet zeboul, JA 7éme Série (1878) 220-225; 
F. C. Movers, Die Phónizier 1 (Bonn 
1841); A. TANGBERG, A Note on Bacal- 
Zébub in 2 Kgs 1,2,3,6.16, SJOT 6 (1992) 
293-296. 


W. HERRMANN 


BACCHUS Baxyos 

I. Bacchus is the form the Greek -*Dio- 
nysus took in Rome. The name derives from 
the Greek epithet Baxyog which denoted 
both the ecstatic Dionysus and his follower 
(fem. Baxyn). The epiclesis denoted a fun- 
damental cultic aspect of the Greek god 
which had become prominent in Roman cult 
also, as had been the case in other neigh- 
bouring cultures: the Etruscans assimilated it 
as an epiclesis of their god Fufluns, the in- 
digenous equivalent to Dionysus (Fufluns 
Paxies) (CRISTOFANI & MARTELLI 1978), 
the Lydians, like the Romans, transformed it 
into the name of the god (Bakis) (GRAF 
1985:285-291). In the Bible Bacchus occurs 
only as a theophoric element in the personal 
name Bacchides (20 times in 1 Macc). 

II. Roman religion had its own god 
Liber (paired with a goddess Libera) with 
whom Greek Dionysus was identified at an 
early age. The nature of Liber before the 
assimilation is difficult to grasp, besides the 
assumption of a general similarity in form 
and function; to judge from Italic rituals, the 
cult of Liber had sexual, even obscene 
features (DUMEZIL 1977:382-383). At the 
time of our documentation, Liber and 
Bacchus are fully identified and understood 
as the Roman equivalents of Dionysus. 

Two properties characterised Roman 
Bacchus, wine and ecstasy. Greek Dionysus 
was connected with wine and viticulture in 
the larger contexts of ecstasy and anti- 
structure; with Roman Bacchus (Liber), the 
connection with wine and viticulture had 
much more emphasis and paralleled the 
importance of cereals and agriculture of 
Roman Ceres. Cult and literature, however, 
are distinct in this sphere: Bacchus is the 
god of wine mainly in literature, while the 
cult kept to the traditional Latin name Liber. 


Much more prominent is Bacchus in 
ecstatic and mystery rituals. The ecstatic cult 
was introduced in late 3d or early 2nd cent. 
BCE as a private cult, brought to Rome from 
Etruria by an itinerant priest and strictly 
confined to women. Somewhat later, a 
priestess from Campania opened the cult 
group to both genders; it quickly developed 
into a conspicuous though still private cult 
association whose ritual, the Bacchanalia, 
was well known to contemporaries (see 
Plautus, Aulularia 408, Casina 979-980). 
Roman political authorities were always 
wary of too independent private cults, and 
when, in 186 BCE, a citizen accused the 
officials of the Bacchanalia of sexual assault 
and ritual murder, the senate quickly inter- 
vened and reduced the cult to very small 
ritual congregations—without being able or 
willing to forbid it altogether (sce Livy 
39,8-18; Dessau, Inscriptiones | Latinae 
Selectae 18; PAILLER 1988). Private Bacch- 
analia continued to be celebrated in Rome 
and gained ground again during the first 
century BCE; by the time of the emperor 
Claudius, Messalina’s licentiousness con- 
nected the cult with another scandal (Taci- 
tus, Annals 11,31; HENRICHS 1978). Never- 
theless, at the beginning of the imperial age 
Bacchic mysteries were an affair also of the 
upper classes, as is shown by the archac- 
ological and epigraphical documents, esp. 
the relicfs from the Roman Villa Farnesina 
(dated early in the reign of Augustus), the 
imposing fresco in the Pompeian Villa dei 
Misteri (Marz 1963), and the Bacchic 
inscription from Torre Nova (mid-second 
cent. CE SCHEID 1986). These monuments 
show that the Roman mysteries of Bacchus 
formed part of the mainstream Dionysiac 
movement in the late Hellenistic and Im- 
perial periods; at the same time, they give a 
precious insight into particular aspects of the 
initiatory ritual and the structure and idcol- 
ogy of a larger cultic association (Dionysus). 

In Latin literature, Bacchus is the god 
who provides poetic ecstasy and inspiration 
(Horace, Cann. 2,19 and 3,25; Properce 3,7; 
Ovid, Trist. 5,3). This is a Roman inno- 
vation: although already Democritus and 


156 


BAETYL 


Plato had developed a theory of ecstatic 
poetical inspiration, the inspirator remained 
Apollo. From Roman literature, the concept 
was taken over into later European poet- 
ology (MAHE 1988). 
III. Bibliography 

A. BRUHL, Liber Pater. Origine et expan- 
sion du culte dionysiaque à Rome et dans le 
monde romain (Paris 1953); M. CRISTOFANI 
& M. MamRrELLI, Fufluns Pachies. Sugli 
aspetti del culto di Bacco in Etruria, Studi 
Etruschi 46 (1978) 119-133; G. DuMÉ2ZIL, 
La religion romaine archaique, suivi d'un 
appendice sur la religion des Étrusques, 2nd 
edition (Paris 1974); F. GRaF, Nordionische 
Culte. Religionsgeschichtliche und epigra- 
phische Untersuchungen zu den Kulten von 
Chios, Erythrai, Klazomenai und Phokai 
(Bibliotheca Helvetia Romana 21; Rome 
1985); A. HENRICHS, Greek Menadism from 
Olympias to Messalina, HSCP 82 (1978) 
121-160; N. Mané, Le mythe de Bacchus 
dans la poesie lyrique de 1549 à 1600 
(Frankfurt, Bem etc. 1988); F. MATZ, 
Atovuoiaxn Tedem. Archiiologische Unter- 
suchungen zum Dionysoskult in. hellenis- 
tischer und römischer Zeit (Abh. Mainz 
1963:15; Wiesbaden 1963); J.-M. PAILLER, 
Bacchanalia. La répression de 186 av. J.-C. 
à Rome et en ltalie. Vestiges, images, tradi- 
tions (Rome and Paris 1988); J. ScukiD, Le 
thiase du Metropolitan Museum (IGUR 
1,160), Les associations dionysiaques dans 
les sociétés anciennes (ed. O. de Cazanove; 
Rome 1986) 275-290. 


F. GRAF 


BAETYL BaíituXog 

I. According to the classical texts, Bai- 
tylos (Greek v for € see EISSFELDT 
1962:228 n. 1; HEMMERDINGER 1970:60) is 
a 'Stone-god'. According to Semitic etymol- 
ogy the divine name could be interpreted as 
‘House of God/El’, -*Bethel. Some scholars 
therefore identify Baitylos with the deity 
Bethel. The divine name Bethel is known 
from Gen 31:13, 35:7, Amos 5:5 and else- 
where; it may be intended in Jer 48:13; as a 
theophoric element in a Babylonian personal 


name it occurs in Zech 7:2. The issue of the 
origin of the divine name Baitylos, of its 
occurrence in the OT, and of its possible 
Semitic roots are unsolved questions. There 
are three aspects of the problem: the cult of 
a god Baitylos/Bethel. the presence of many 
deities compounded with this name, and the 
baetyls as cultic objects. 

II. In the Phoenician theogony of Philo 
Byblius (quoted by Eusebius, P. E. I 10, 16) 
the god Baitylos is a son of Ouranos (‘Sky’) 
and his wife-sister Gé (-*Earth), with the 
brothers -*El/Kronos, -Dagon and Atlas. 
This divine name scems unrelated to the 
baetyls (Gk baitylia), the ‘stones endowed 
with life’ invented by Ouranos, which Philo 
mentions a few lines further (Eusebius, P. E. 
1 10, 23), but the names are similar and the 
possibilities for confusion numerous. In the 
ancient Near East, the earliest certain occur- 
rence of this god is from the 7th century 
BCE. In the treaty between Esarhaddon, king 
of Assyria, and Baal, king of Tyre, 4ba-a-a- 
1i-DINGIR.MES(i/i) = Bayt-el, is coupled with 
da-na-ti-ba-a-[a-ti-DINGI]R.MES(ili) — Anat- 
Bayt-el (ANET, 534; SAA 2, 5 iv:6"). The 
same pair occurs in the list of divine wit- 
nesses invoked in the Succession Treaty of 
Esarhaddon (VTE 467 [reconstruction]; VAN 
DER ToonN 1992:83, 99 n. 18). In the 6th 
century BCE, the name of the god begins to 
occur as theophoric element in several 
West-Semitic personal names from Mes- 
opotamia (Hyatr 1939:82-84). Then, in the 
5th century, his cult appears among the 
Egyptian-Jewish community at Elephantine. 
The Aramaic papyri from this colony attest 
the deity in composite names; the name of 
the deity is related to. Eshem (mbyrl, 
'Name of Baitylos'), perhaps with. Herem 
(hrmbyrl, *Sacredness{?] of Baitylos’; pace 
VAN DER TOORN 1986) and certainly with 
—Anat (‘ntbyrl, ‘Providence, Sign, or Ac- 
tive Presence of Baitylos’). These composite 
names are to be explained as referring to 
separate deities, or as hypostatized aspects 
of the same god, Bethel. Finally, in the 3rd 
century CE, this deity is attested in three 
Greek inscriptions from Syria: at Doura 
Europos Zeus Betylos is mentioned as ‘(god) 


157 


BAETYL 


of the dwellers along the Orontes’ (SEYRIG 
1933:78); IGLS 376, from Kafr Nabo (near 
Aleppo), contains a dedication to the 
‘paternal gods’ Seimios, Symbetylos (‘Name 
of Betylos’, see Eshem-Bayt-el at Elephan- 
tine) and to the Lion; /GLS 383 from Qal'at 
Kálóta (the same region) attests the name of 
[Zeus B]aitylos. 

Thus the question of the god's origin and 
of his functions remains enigmatic. The 
deity does not occur at Ugarit or in any 
other text from the second millennium BCE. 
VAN DER TOORN observes that the cult of 
this deity seems to be confined to North 
Syria, brought into Egypt in the 5th century 
by Northern Syrian Aramaeans (1992:85). 
He argues that Bethel and Anat-Bethel are a 
pair of late Aramaean deities. Note, how- 
ever, the opposing views of J. P. Hyatt, M. 
L. Barré and J. T. Milik. The first suggests 
that Bethel became a deity as deification of 
the temple of El (or god), inhabitant of the 
sanctuary (HvATT 1939). The second scholar 
regards Bethel as a "hypostasis or circum- 
locution of El’ and argues that he was one 
of the supreme gods of the Tyrian pantheon 
(BARRE 1983:46-49). MiLix, finally, thinks 
of one ‘Betyl’ above all, morphologically 
distinguished from other baitylia, and judges 
Bethel and Anat-Bethel a pair of ‘trans- 
fluvial’ deities, not necessary Tyrians; in his 
view the cult of Bethel is of Sidonian origin 
(1967:570, 576). Nevertheless, as for the 
name, in Akkadian documents there is no 
doubt that it should be explained on the 
basis of the Aramaic language rather than 
Phoenician; about the names compounded 
with Bayt-el, one may also bear in mind that 
'binominal-gods' are known both in the 
Ugaritic pantheon and in first millennium 
BCE Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, e.g. 
—Eshmun-Melqart, Sid-Tanit and  Sid- 
Melqart. As for the character, wc have 
various and discordant pieces of informa- 
tion: the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon 
affirms that Bayt-cl and Anat-Bayt-el will 
punish the treaty breaker by sending hungry 
lions; Philo of Byblos, on the other hand, 
limits his observations to the divine 
(heavenly) genealogy of Baitylos and appar- 


ently does not link this god with the stones 
(baitylia) that Kronos endowed with vital 
force. Yet this kind of relationship is at- 
tested by several other documents. The 
Greek substantive baitylos and its diminu- 
tive baitylion occur only in late authors, 
none of whom seems to be earlier than Philo 
Byblius. Yet the worship of —stones as 
symbols of various deities is well attested in 
the Syrian religions, from the second millen- 
nium BCE documents (as sikkanum "betyl'; 
Dietrich, Loretz & Mayer 1989; Hur- 
TER 1993:88-91) up to Roman times (coins 
of Tyre, Sidon and Byblos); the Punic popu- 
lation of North Africa worshipped stones of 
the same kind apparently (e.g. C/L VIII 
23283: vow of a baetilum to Saturnus; see 
RossiGNoL! 1992). More particularly, late 
Greek and Latin commentators, mytho- 
graphers and lexicographers establish a 
special equivalence between what the 
Grecks called Baitylos and the Semitic cult 
of holy stones. It seems also possible that 
for the ancient writers the baetyl (Gk 
baitylion, Lat baetulus) denotes a particular 
kind of sacred stone, generally small and 
portable, of heavenly origin (real or sup- 
posed) and having magic qualities. Thus the 
bactyl was normally a meteoric stone en- 
dowed with divining faculties (UGOLINI 
1981); Damascius (Vita Isid. 94 and 203, ed. 
Zintzen, 138 and 274-278) calls the stones 
that had fallen from heaven in the area of 
Mount —Lebanon baityla or baitylia; they 
were used for private oracles. In mythol- 
ogical records the baetyl occurs as well; the 
stone that Kronos swallowed, taking it for 
->Zeus, is called a baetyl. Hesiod tells 
(Theog. 485-490) that the goddess Rhea, 
who was delivered of Zeus, wrapped a stone 
in swaddling-clothes and gave it to Kronos 
to devour, which he did without noticing the 
substitution. As an adult, Zeus made Kronos 
vomit up all the children he had devoured. 
This stone/Baitylos, in some sources, has 
also the name Abaddir, a word attested epi- 
graphically as theonym in Roman North- 
Africa (RIBICHINI 1985). Like the baetyls of 
Philo Byblius and of Damascius, Abaddir 
was an animated stone, which, vomited up 


158 


BAGA 


by Kronos, ‘had the shape of a human and 
was animated’ (c.g. Myth. Vat. MI 15, ed. 
Bode). Abaddir, moreover, is known both as 
a divine name and as a divine appellative 
(Augustine, Ep. XVII 2). These sources 
show, in the fusion of classical and Punic 
traditions, how an onginally Semitic cult 
object came to be endowed with a personal- 
ity and was credited with the ability to per- 
form prodigies, to get excited and to give 
responses (see Josepp. Christ., Libell. mem. 
in Vet. et Nov. Test. 143, PG 106, 161 D). 

IIl. According to Jer 48:13, the house of 
Israel put its trust in Bethel, as Moab did in 
-—'Chemosh. The parallelism with Chemosh 
makes it plausible that Bethel refers here to 
the god of that name, rather than to a topo- 
graphical element. This fact is surprising, 
because the Northern Syrian deity is other- 
wisc unconnected with Israel. Yet it must bc 
assumed that some time before 600 BCE the 
cult of Bethel was introduced into Israel; it 
is hardly likely that the god Bethel is related 
to the biblical town Bethel (VAN DER TOORN 
1992:90-91,99 n. 26; pace EissFELDT 1930 
= 1962). 

It has been suggested that the god Bethel 
is mentioned in other biblical passages, e.g. 
Gen 31 and 35, Amos 3:14, 5:5. On the 
other hand, one may also postulate that the 
stone of Gen 28:10-22 (a massébd) on 
which Jacob slept and which he had 
anointed, must be connected to the cult of 
baetyls, as ‘houses of God" and related with 
his vision, though the word baetylia does 
not appear in Greek OT. 

IV. Bibliography 
M. L. BARRÉ, The God-List in the Treaty 
between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedon- 
fa: A Study in Light of the Ancient Near 
Eastern Treaty Tradition (Baltimore 1983); 
A. I. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History 
of Philo of Byblos. A Commentary (EPRO 
89; Leiden 1981) 190, 202-203; E. R. 
DaLGuisH, Bethel (Deity), ABD 1 (1992) 
706-710; M. Dietrich, O. Loretz & W. 
Mayer, Sikkanum ‘Betyle’, UF 21 (1989) 
133-139: O. ElssFELDT, Der Gott Bethel, 
ARW 28 (1930) 1-30 = KS 1 (Tübingen 
1962) 206-233; B. HEMMERDINGER, De la 


méconnaissance de quelques étymologies, 
Glotta 48 (1970) 59-60; M. HUTTER, Kult- 
stelen und Baityloi, Religionsgeschichtliche 
Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nord- 
syrien und dem Alten Testament (eds. B. 
Janowski, K. Koch & G. Wilhelm eds.; 
OBO 129; Freiburg & Göttingen 1993) 87- 
108; J. P. Hvarr, The Deity Bethel in the 
Old Testament, JAOS 59 (1939) 81-98; T. 
N. D. METIINGER. No Graven Image? Isra- 
elite Aniconism in its Near Eastern Context 
(Stockholm 1995) esp. 69-75, 110-112, 129- 
132; J. T. MiLiK, Les papyrus araméens 
d'Hermoupolis et les cultes syro-phéniciens 
(2. Dieu Béthel), Bib 48 (1967) 565-577; J. 
C. pe Moor, Standing Stones and Ancestor 
Worship, UF 27 (1995) 1-20; S. RIBICHINI, 
Poenus Advena. Gli dei fenici e l'interpreta- 
zione classica (Roma 1985) 113-125; C. 
ROSSIGNOLI, Persistenza del culto betilico 
nell'Africa romana: un'iscrizione da Thala 
(Tunisia), L'Africa romana. Atti del IX Con- 
vegno di studio, Nuoro, 13-15 dicembre 
1991, | (ed. A. Mastino; Sassari 1992) 73- 
96; H. SEvRIG, Altar Dedicated to Zeus 
Betylos, Excavations at Dura-Europos, Pre- 
liminary Reports of Fourth Season, (eds. P. 
V. C. Baur, M. l. Rostovtzeff & A. R. Bel- 
linger; New Haven 1933) 68-71; M. H. SiL- 
VERMAN. Religious Values in the Jewish 
Proper Names at Elephantine (AOAT 217; 
Neukirchen- Vluyn 1985) 221-229; M. Uco- 
LINI, Il dio (di) pietra, Sandalion 4 (1981) 7- 
29; K. vaN DER ToonN, Herem-Bethel and 
Elephantine Oath Procedure, ZAW 98 (1986) 
282-285; vAN DER TooRN, Anat-Yahu, Some 
Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine, 
Numen 39 (1992) 80-101; vAN DER TOORN, 
Worshipping Stones: On the Deification of 
Cult Symbols, JNSL 23/1 (1997) 1-14; E. 
WiLL, Adonis chez les Grecs avant Alexa- 
ndre, Transeuphraténe 12 (1996) 65-72; G. 
Zuntz, Baitylos and Bethel, Classica et 
Medievalia 8 (1946) 169-219. 


S. RIBICHINI 


BAGA 
I. The personal name Bagoas to be 
found in Judith 12:11 is undoubtedly an 


159 


BARAD 


Iranian name, although quite difficult to 
interpret. The second term oas cannot be 
explained with any certainty, as was ac- 
knowledged by EiLERS (1954-56) after a 
strictly formal attempt and, more recently, 
by HuvsE with even stronger scepticism 
(1990). The first term baga raises problems 
of another kind. It is a common dialectal 
singularity of Iranian languages that they 
gave the old Indo-European word *deiud 
(Sanskrit deva, Lat deus) a negative value 
and substituted baga- for the former mean- 
ing of *daiua-, which had come to mean 
‘evil spirit? (BURROW 1973; KELLENS 1976; 
SIMS-WILLIAMS 1989; according to the 
second author, yazata-, common in the 
Avesta, is not a general term concurring 
with baga-, but a specific title only for the 
deities close to -*Mithra). Another occuren- 
ce of baga in the Hebrew Bible may be 
found in the personal name Bigtha (Est 
1:10), if the latter is analyzed as baga+da, 
‘the gift of Baga’ (cf. GEHMAN 1924:323). 

II. The whole question is to know 
whether baga is always the divine title par 
excellence or whether it may be the personal 
name of a Mazdaean god. It has been 
thought, albeit inconclusively, that the word 
might refer to Mithra (since MARQUART 
1896) or be the Iranian name for Indian 
Varuna (Boyce 1981). HENNING (1965), 
relying on the Sogdian word for wedding, 
byny-p§-kP kw, and GiGNoux (1977; 1979), 
referring to onomastic data from epigraphic 
Middle-Persian, believe there is an Iranian 
god Baga corresponding to the minor Vedic 
deity Bhaga, who is the allegory of sharing 
or the agent par excellence of divine bounty. 
The inconclusiveness of their arguments was 
easily demonstrated by Dietz (1978) for the 
former and by ZIMMER (1984) for the latter. 
SIMS-WILLIAMS (1989) advocates an inter- 
mediary position which sounds fairly 
reasonable: “It is probable that baga- ‘god’ 
sometimes designates a specific deity as ‘the 
god’ par excellence (...) but no basis has 
ever been stated for the assumption that 
baga- ‘the god’ (...) must refer to the same 
divinity at all periods and in all parts of the 
Iranian world". 


III. Bibliography 
M. Boyce, Varuna the Baga, Monumentum 
Georg Morgenstierne, Vol 1 (Tehran-Liège 
1981) 59-73; T. Burrow, The Proto-Indo- 
Aryans, JRAS (1973) 130; A. Dierz, Baga 
and Mitra in Sogdiana, Etudes Mithriaques 
(Tehran-Ligge 1978) 111-114; W. Evers, 
Neue aramiische Urkunden aus Agypten, 
AfO 17 (1954-56) 327-328 n. 19; H. S. 
GEHMAN, Notes on the Persian Words in 
the Book of Esther, JBL 43 (1924) 321-328; 
P. GiGNoux, Le dieu Baga en Iran, Acta 
Antiqua Hungarica 25 (1977 [1980]) 119- 
127; GicNoux, Les noms propres en 
moyen-perse  épigraphique, Pad nam-i 
yazdán (Paris 1979 [1980]) 88-90; W. B. 
HENNING, A Sogdian God, BSOAS 28 
(1965) 242-254; P. Huyse, Bagoas, Irani- 
sches Personennamenbuch, Vol V 6a (Wien 
1990) 39-40; J. KELLENS, Trois réflexions 
sur la religion des Achéménides, Studien zur 
Indologie und Iranistik 2 (1976) 121-126; J. 
Marquart [Markwart], Untersuchungen 
zur Geschichte von Iran | (Gottingen 1896) 
63-65; N. Sims-WILLIAMS, Baga, Encyclo- 
paedia Iranica, Vol 3 (London-New York 
1989) 403-405; S. ZIMMER, Iran. baga - ein 


Gottesnamc?, — Münchener Studien zur 
Sprachwissenschaft 43 (1984) 187-215. 
J. KELLENS 


BARAD 72 

I. As used in two passages of the OT, 
Heb 772, vocalized as báràád, has been 
interpreted as the name of an ancient deity 
of the Canaanite pantheon. In some texts 
from Tell Mardikh-Ebla of the third millen- 
nium sce 9Baradu (madu) occurs as a di- 
vine name. Etymologically, both biblical 
barad and Eblaitic Baradu (madu) are to be 
related to the Semitic root *BRD and to be 
explained as "(big) Chill". 

II. The Eblaitic god Baradu madu has 
been explained by G. PETTINATO as a divin- 
ized form of the -*Euphrates (Ebla: un 
impero inciso nell' argilla [Milan 1979] 
268). Since the name of this river occurs in 
the texts from Ebla under its 'classical' 
name Purattu (TM.75.G.2192 IV 1-2 = 


160 


BARAQ — BASHAN 





ARET 5 [1984], no. 3 iv 2-3: A bit-la-na-tim 
= *mawi Puran(a)tum), Pettinato’s interpre- 
tation cannot be upheld. It is very likely that 
Baradu is a personification of the hail (cf. 
ARET 5 [1984] no. 4 v 4-5 NA, ba-ra-du, 
“hail-stones”, cf. Aram [’bny b]rd in Sefire 1 
A 25), a minor deity of the Iocal pantheon 
or a specific manifestation of the Storm-God 
Adda (Hadad). The Eblaitic texts attest 
that Baradu received some sacrificial offer- 
ings like precious metals and sheep 
(TM.75.G.1376 = MEE 2 no. 48 r. vi 4 
[Sba-ra-du ma-ad]; TM.75.G.1541 = ARET 
2 no. 8 ix 4; TM.75.G.2075 iv 29 = OrAnt 
18 [1979] 149). The same god occurs per- 
haps as a theophoric element in the Ugaritic 
personal name brdd (*Haddu is Hail'[?)). 

I!I. In the OT Bárád occurs in Ps 78:48, 
in a passage which concerns the seventh 
plague of Egypt, where Barad occurs in 
parallel with ‘the Reshephs’ (pl.): wayyasgér 
labbarad bé&irdm  ímiqnéhem | lárésápim, 
“He (= Yahweh) gave up their cattle to 
Barad, and their herds to the Reshefs." In 
Isa 28:2 Barad is paralleled with a demon in 
the service of Yahweh, ->Qeteb ('Destruc- 
tion’). We have a very interesting antithesis 
between the chill and the stifling heat caused 
by the hot wind: hinneh hazaq wé’ammis 
la'dónày  kézerem bdardd Ssa‘ar qateb, 
“Behold, the Lord has a mighty and strong 
one, like a tempest of Barad, like a storm of 
Qeteb.” 

III. Bibliography 
A. Caguot, Sur quelques démons de 
l'Ancien Testament, Sem 6 (1956) 53-68; P. 
XELLA, ‘Le Grand Froid’: Le dieu Baradu 
madu à Ebla, UF 18 (1986) 437-444. 


P. XELLA 


BARAQ > LIGHTNING 


BASHAN jd2 

I. Hebrew basdn I ‘fertile, stoneless 
piece of ground’ (HALAT, 158), should be 
distinguished from Heb bafdn II ‘serpent’, 
which is etymologically cognate with Ug 
btn ‘serpent’ (Akk bašmu, Ar batan, DAY 
1985:113-119: see also Heb peten: cf. 


HALAT 930). A relation between båšān | 
and II was proposed by Albright (BASOR 
110 [1948] 17, n. 53; HUCA 23 [1950-1951] 
27-28; cf. FENSHAM, JNES 19 [1960] 292- 
293; Dauoop 1981:145-146). He inter- 
preted Bashan, 'Serpent', as a nickname of 
the Canaanite god Yammu, the chaotic 
serpentine monster, given its apparent paral- 
Ielism with yd in Ps 68:23, usually under- 
stood as a merism (KRAUS 1966:465; CaR- 
NITI 1985:95; TATE 1990; but cf. De Moor 
1990:122). bāšān I occurs: a) As a gcographi- 
cal name, with arnicle habbāšān, mainly in 
the dtr tradition (Deut 3:1-14; Josh 12:4-5; 
and approximately 40 times more) and in 
some historical hymns (Pss 135:11; 136:20), 
of a region of northern Transjordan con- 
quered by the Israelites, formerly inhabited 
by the -*Rephaim, whose king was the 
mythical Og, and where afterwards a part 
of the tribe of Manasseh established itself 
(e.g. Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 21:6). This 
region also served as a delimiting point of 
the Israelite boundaries (e.g. Josh 12:5; 
13:11, 30; 2 Kgs 10:33). b) As a literary and 
metaphorical reference, without article gen- 
crally basan, given its proverbial fertility; in 
this connexion some prophetic traditions 
refer to its ‘cows’, ‘bulls’, ‘rams’, ‘fatlings’ 
and ‘lions’ (Amos 4:1; Mic 7:14; Ezek 39: 
18; Ps 22:13; Deut 32;14), while others 
quote its ‘oaks’, as famous as -*Lebanon’s 
cedars (Isa 2:13; Jer 22:20; Ezek 27:6; Zech 
11:1-2), and praise in general its fertility, 
comparing it with the —Carmel because of 
its rich pastures and proposing both of them 
as the recovered eschatological resting 
place. now destroyed and desolate (Jer 
$0:19; Mic 7:14; Isa 33:9; Nah 1:4). The 
geographical indication Bashan functions as 
the depiction of the divine abode in Ps 
68:16 and Deut 33:22, also without article, 
related possibly to Canaanite mythology 
which places here the heavenly/infernal 
dwelling place of its deified dead kings. 
echoed in the Biblical geographical tradition 
mentioned in básán 1 a) and probably in b). 
II. Biblical geographical tradition agrees 
with the mythological and cultic data of the 
Ugaritic texts. According to KTU 1.108:1-3, 


161 


BASHAN 


the abode of the milk ‘im, the dead and 
deified king (DEL OLMo LETE 1987:49-53), 
and his place of enthronement as rpu was in 
‘Strt-hdr’y, in amazing correspondence with 
the Biblical tradition about the seat of king 
Og of Bashan, “one of the survivors of the 
Rephaim, who lived in Ashtarot and Edrei” 
(Josh 12:4 [NEB]). This place ‘Str7 is also 
treated in KTU 1.100:41; 1.107:17: and RS 
86.2235:17 as the abode of the god milk, the 
eponym of the mlkm, the dcificd kings, 
synonym of the rpuwm. For the ‘Canaanites’ 
of Ugarit, the Bashan region, or a part of it, 
clearly represented ‘Hell’, the celestial and 
infernal abode of their deified dead kings, 
—Olympus and ~Hades at the same time. It 
is possible that this localization of the 
Canaanite Hell is linked to the ancient tradi- 
tion of the place as the ancestral home of 
their dynasty, the rpum. The Biblical text 
also recalls that “all Bashan used to be 
called the land/earth of the Rephaim" (Deut 
3:13 [NEB]), an ambiguous wording that 
could equally be translated as “the ‘hell’ of 
the Rephaim". In any case, the link between 
Bashan and the rpum/Rephaim in both tradi- 
tions speaks in favour of a very old use of 
the two meanings of this last denomination: 
ancient dwellers of Northern Transjordan / 
inhabitants of ‘Hell’. 

HI. Precisely this double semantic level 
referring to the dwellers also appears in con- 
nexion with the place, Bashan, namely, an 
empirical and mytho-theological denomina- 
tion in the Biblical tradition as well. This 
mytho-theological resonance can be appreci- 
ated mainly in Ps 68:16 where it is plainly 
asserted that Bashan is a har ’éléhim, the 
same expression used in the Bible to 
designate — Yahweh's abode. But it is clear 
that such a denomination docs not belong to 
the Israelite tradition about the dwelling 
place of their national God. According to 
the same Ps 68:9, 19 Yahweh has his orig- 
inal abode in Sinai whence He will move to 
‘the mount of his election’. Mount Bashan is 
rather set against Sinai in a conflict of 
Olympi, aiming to defend its preeminence. 
This is to say, such a designation reproduces 
the Canaanite tradition that located the di- 


vine abode in the region of Bashan-Salmon 
(Curtis 1986:89-95; 1987, 39-47). Accord- 
ing to DE Moor (1990:124-127) it is 
Yahweh-El who takes posession of this divi- 
ne mountain as his own ancient abode. It is 
curious, nevertheless, that in connexion with 
this conflict the corresponding Canaanite 
deity who opposes Yahweh is not men- 
tioned. In his place the malké séba’6r (v 13), 
the mélakim (v 15; cf v 30), usually inter- 
preted as chiefs of either the enemy's or 
Israel's armies, are adduced; namely, the 
opponents of Yahweh are precisely, accord- 
ing to Ps 68, the same divine dwellers of 
Bashan whom the Ugaritic tradition records: 
the mikm/mélakim  (rpum/Rephaim). The 
syntagma har/Rárim gabnunnim, most com- 
monly construed as a metaphor for ‘high 
mountains’, could also be considered a 
parallel designation of these deitics (DEL 
Orwo Lere 1988:54-55), taking into 
account the parallelism har ’élohim har 
basan har gabnunnim har basdan (v. 16) and 
the tauromorphic appearance of -*Baal and 
other deities in Canaan (ATU 1.12 I 30-33). 
In any case we are not dealing here simply 
with ordinary animals; the expression has 
mythological overtones that Jacosps (JBL 
104 [1985] 109-110) also assumes in Amos 
4:1; “cows of Bashan” as a title of Samar- 
ia's women in their role of ‘Baal’s wives’ in 
the cult of the fertility god shaped as a bull. 
Furthermore, Bashan, the divine moun- 
tain, is simultaneously the 'infernal' sphere 
from which the God of Israel promises to 
make his faithful return (v 23). This coinci- 
dence of the ‘celestial’ and ‘infernal’ levels 
is congruent with the Canaanite mythology 
that locates here the abode of its deified 
dead kings, the mik(myrpu(m) that dwell(s) 
in *3tr/hdr'v. Again the parallelism clarifies 
the issue, making plain the infernal character 
of Bashan through its being cquated with 
mésuldt yam, these two lexemes being 
designations of Hell in the Hebrew Bible 
(TRoMP 1969:56-64), not to be understood 
either as a simple literary merism indicating 
the cosmic sphere of Yahweh's activity or 
as a mythological designation of the god 
Yam. Perhaps this is a similar case to that 


162 


BASHTU 


offered by the Mesopotamian town of 
Kutha, center of the cult to —Nergal. that 
afterwards became a name for ‘hell’ (HUTTER 
1985:55-56), as was also the case with the 
Hebrew toponym gêl?) hinnóm, 'Gchenna'. 

According to this interpretation, midway 
between a purely metaphorical sense 
(Kraus, TATE, CARNITI) and an overall 
mythological reading (ALBRIGHT, FENSHAM, 
DaHooD, TROMP, DE Moor), the Hebrew 
Bible conflates Canaanite traditions that 
located their Heaven-Hell in the region of 
Bashan within a wider framework of myth- 
ical geography that included at least Mount 
-Hermon as —El's abode and the Hule 
marsh as the scene of Baal's hunting and 
death. The Hebrew Bible integrated these 
traditions when giving form to its epics of 
the Conquest of Canaan and the exaltation 
of its God as vanquisher and liberator from 
its ‘demons’. 

IV. Bibliography 
L. R. BatLey, The Gehenna: the Topo- 
graphy of Hell, BA 49 (1986) 187-191; C. 
Carnim1, Il salmo 68. Studio letterario 
(Rome 1985); J. B. Curtis, Har-bašan, ‘the 
Mountain of God' (Ps. 68: 16 [15]), Pro- 
ceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and 
Midwest Biblical Societies 6 (1986) 85-95; 
Curtis, The Celebrated Victory at Zalmon 
(Ps 68:14-15). Proceedings of the Eastern 
Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 
7 (1987) 39-47; M. DaHoop, Psalms H. 51- 
100 (AB 17; Garden City 19813) 130-152; 
J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and 
the Sea (Cambridge 1985) 113-119; G. DEL 
OLMO Lerte, Basán o el ‘infierno’ cananeo, 
SEL 5 (1988) 51-60; DeL OLMO LETE, Los 
nombres divinos de los reyes de Ugarit, 
AulOr 5 (1987) 39-66, esp. 50; B. MARGA- 
LIT, The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT. 
Text-Translation-Commentary (BZAW 182; 
Berlin 1989) 473-475; J. C. ne Moor, The 
Rise of Yahwism (BETL 91; Leuven 1990) 
118-128: pe Moor, East of Eden, ZAW 100 
(1988) 105-111; bE Moor, Ugarit and Israe- 
lite Origins, Congress Volume: Paris 1992 
(VTSup 61; ed. J. A. Emerton; Leiden 1995) 
205-238: M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, 
Rápi'u und Milku aus Ugarit. Neuere histo- 


risch-geographische Thesen zu rpu mik ‘lm 
(KTU 1.108:1) und mt rpi (KTU 1.17 1 1). 
UF 21 (1989) 124-130, esp. 123-127; H.-J. 
Kraus, Psalmen I. Teilband (BKAT, XV/1; 
Neukirchen-Vluyn 19663) 464; M. HUTTER, 
Altorientalische Vorstellungen von der 
Unterwelt (OBO 63; Fribourg/Göttingen 
1985); M. E. Tate, Psalms 51-100 (WBC 
20; Dallas 1990) 159-186; N. J. TRONP, 
Primitive Conceptions of Death and the 
Nether World in the Old Testament (Rome 
1969); G. WANKE, Die Ziontheologie der 
Korachiten (BZAW 97; Berlin 1966). 


G. DEL OLMO LETE 


BASHTU n3i2 

I. Akk baštu (in later texts baltu., Sum 
téš) “dignity, pride, decorum” is sometimes 
characterized as a protective spirit in Mes- 
opotamia. Heb bōšet occurs in personal 
names in the OT (2 Sam 2:8 and 4:4) as a 
substitute for the theophoric element. The 
Akkadian noun derived from the verb 
ba'à$u "to come to shame", which is of 
common Semitic origin (e.g. Ug bt, Aram 
beliet, Heb bos). VON SODEN (1964) tried to 
show that baštu had an original meaning 
"sexual power" and that it was part of a 
more complex concept for "life force", 
expressed by four words: lamassu “effi- 
ciency power”, Sedu "vital power", baSstu 
and diitu “generative power". This interpre- 
tation is rejected in the CAD. As a positive 
quality baštu is used to describe deities, 
humans, cities and buildings (for evidence 
see CAD B 142-144 and AHW 112). Some- 
times it is associated with garments or 
adomments. From Old Babylonian hymns to 
— Ishtar we know that the Babylonians 
regarded bastu as a divine gift. 

Il. In rituals and prayers from first mil- 
lennium Mesopotamia, baštu is mentioned 
several times in connection with the protec- 
tive spirits Shedu and Lamassu (for refer- 
ences see CAD B, 142-143 sub | a and 2 a), 
and in a late lexical list (MSL 14 [1979] 
367:310 and 389:306) it is preceded by the 
divine determinative, again between Shedu 
and Lamassu. Therefore it is possible that 


163 


BASTET 


like them baštu was regarded as a protective 
spirit at least during the first millennium 
BCE. In a late god-list (5 R 43: ii 38) dBaltu 
is equated with dNabí ili balti "Nabü (as) 
god of dignity" and there also is evidence 
for a star named ™Baltu (5 R 46: 45). 

From Old Akkadian times onwards baštu 
occurs in personal names like /li-basti “My- 
God-Is-My-Bashtu", /na-in-basti — "In-the- 
Eye-of-Bashtu" or Libür-basti "My-Bashtu- 
May-Endure" (see CAD B, 143 sub 2 b and 
C). Although it is never written with the 
divine determinative, it can be interpreted as 
a theophoric element. In Mesopotamian 
belief there often was no distinction between 
a phenomenon and its personification as god 
or demon. 

III. In. the OT Hebrew béset denotes 
"shame": shame because of sins (e.g. 2 Sam 
20:30; Jer 2:26; Ezek 7:18), shame because 
of violence (e.g. Obad 1:10) or after a defeat 
(e.g. Mic 7:10; Ps 89:46). In the two person- 
al names Ishbosheth (2 Sam 2:8) and 
Mephibosheth (2 Sam 4:4 and 21:8) it is 
used instead of a theophoric element. This 
does not imply, however, that the reference 
is to a Hebraized form of the AKk Bastu 
(pace TSEVAT 1975). In these two variant 
forms of the names of Saul's son and 
grandson bó3et substitutes the original di- 
vine name -*Baal (compare 1 Chr 8:33-34). 
As it scems, the scribe wanted to avoid the 
name of the rival Canaanite deity and 
replaced it with an expression with obvious 
pejorative connotations, The name Jerub- 
besheth (2 Sam 11:21) is another attestation 
of this phenomenon (compare Judg 6:32). 

IV. Bibliography 
E. EBELING, Baštum, RLA 1 (1928) 431; W. 
VON SODEN, Die Schutzgottheiten Lamassu 
und Schedu in der babylonisch-assyrischen 
Literatur, BagM 3 (1964) 148-156; J. 
STAMM, Die akkadische Namengebung 
(Leipzig 1939) 126 n. 2, 159-160, 311, 355 
and passim; M. TseEvaT, Ishbosheth and 
Congeners: The Names and Their Study, 
HUCA 34 (1975) 71-87. 


H. D. GALTER 


BASTET 

I. The name of the Egyptian goddess 
Bastet occurs in the Bible in Ezek 30:17 as 
part of the name Pibeseth, (C2272) an 
Egyptian town in the Delta near the modern 
Zagazig. The place of the ancient town is 
called nowadays Tell Basta. The Greek name 
was Boubastis and the Hebrew rendering Pi- 
beset. The ancient Egyptian name of the town 
was pr-b3stt (lit. House of Bastet). 

II. The Greek historian Herodotus 
(2.138) who travelled in Egypt in the Sth 
cent. BCE gives a description of the temple 
of the goddess Bastet which he calls 
Artemis and writes: "Other temples may be 
larger or have cost more to build, but none 
is a greater pleasure to look at". From his 
description and from Egyptian texts it may 
be deduced that the temple was surrounded 
on three sides by water which formed a lake 
or isheru like the lake which still surrounds 
the temple of Mut in Karnak on three sides. 

Egyptian temples surrounded on three of 
the four sides by a so-called isheru were 
devoted to leonine goddesses e.g. Tefnut, 
-Hathor, ->Mut, Sakhmet and Bastet who 
were called daughter of the Sun-god -*Re or 
Eye of Re. These goddesses were considered 
to be representations of the original, first 
feminine being and to have a dual nature in 
which fiery anarchic and destructive charac- 
teristics coexisted with pacific and creative 
elements. These goddesses had to be 
pacified with specific rituals. According to a 
mythical story the original furious and fiery 
lioness changed into a peaceful cat and 
settled down in her temple. The lake around 
the temple was meant to cool off her burn- 
ing wrath. 

In older times since the third millennium 
BCE, Bastet was represented as a lion or 
lion-headed woman, but in the first mill. BCE 
when the cat had been domesticated and had 
reached the status of pet animal in Egypt, 
she was more and more represented as a cat- 
headed woman and became the typical cat- 
goddess of Egypt. The many cat-bronzes 
and cat-mummies were originally dedicatory 
offerings of pilgrims, though now found in 
Egyptian collections all over the world. 


164 


BEELZEBUL — 


They may come for a considerable part from 
the temple site of Tell Basta. 

Herodotus (2.60) describes not only the 
temple but also a festival of Bastet in 
Bubastis: Men and women came by ship to 
the city in great numbers, up to 700.000 per- 
sons, singing, dancing and making music 
with flutes and castanets. Elaborate 
sacrifices were made and more wine was 
consumed than during all the rest of the 
year. This fits in with Egyptian sources 
according to which leonine goddesses had to 
be pacified with “the feast of drunkenness”. 
Bastet was certainly a very popular and 
beloved goddess. One could characterize an 
Egyptian goddess by saying that she was 
raging like Sakhmet (the lion-goddess) and 
friendly like Bastet (the cat-goddess). 

The writing and pronunciation of the 
name of the goddess as Bastet is a generally 
accepted convention in Egyptological litera- 
ture, but is no more than a modern recon- 
struction. The second ¢ in the word bistt 
denotes the feminine ending and was usually 
not pronounced. It seems that the aleph (3) 
which is found in traditional Egyptian writ- 
ing changed place and became a Vortonsilbe 
bast(t) >ubesti (J. OsiNG, Die Nominal- 
bildung des Ágyptischen [Mainz 1976] 855- 
856 n. 1319 and 376 n. 55). An Aramaic 
writing of the name of the goddess was ;bst 
(Wb 1, 423). The Egyptian pronunciation of 
the name of the goddess was more like 
‘obast’ or ‘ubesti’ than ‘bastet’ in the Ist 
millennium BCE. It remains remarkable, 
however, that in the Hebrew rendering of 
the place-name the ‘Vortonsilbe’ is not indi- 
cated: Pibeset. The difference in the Hebrew 
version with the Greek rendering Boubastis 
might be the work of the Masoretes, so that 
the pronunciation of the place-name might 
have been ‘Bubast’ or 'Bubeset'. The mean- 
ing of the name of the goddess is uncertain. 
The older, problematic explanation was 
"She of Bubastis" (Wb I, 423); a more 
recent explanation is "She of the ointment- 
jar” (S. QUIRKE, Ancient Egyptian Religion 
[London 1992] 31). Her name was indeed 
written with the hieroglyph ointment-jar 
(b3s) and she was among other things god- 


BEHEMOTH 


dess of protective ointments. Bubastis or 
Pibeset was still one of the most important 
cities of Egypt in the time of Ezekiel. It had 
even been capital of Egypt during dynasties 
22 and 23 (945-730 BCE). 

III. The mentioning of the placename pi- 
beset in Ezek 30:17 has no religio-historical 
implications. A deity Bastet was not vener- 
ated by Ezekiel’s Israelite contemporaries. 

IV. Bibliography 
E. Orro, Bastet, LdÁ 1, 628-630; J. QUAE- 
GEBEUR, Le culte de Boubastis - Bastet en 
Egypte gréco-romaine, Les divins chats 
d'Egypte (ed. L. Delvaux & E. Warmenbol; 
Leuven 1991) 117-127. 


H. TE VELDE 


BEELZEBUL -* BAAL-ZEBUB 


BEHEMOTH NND 

I. Despite frequent claims that Behe- 
moth refers to one or another animal of the 
natural world, the Behemoth depicted in Job 
40:15-24 (10-19) is best understood as a 
mythological creature possessing supernatu- 
ral characteristics. By form béhemót is the 
intensive (feminine) plural of  béhémá 
(‘beast, ox’; collective: ‘beasts, cattle’; see 
BoTTERWECK 1975:6-17); nevertheless, in 
Job 40:15-24 the grammatical forms pertain- 
ing to Behemoth are all masculine singular. 
The figure suggested is a singular being of 
awesome dimensions, a ‘super ox’ of mythic 
proportions and possessing supernatural 
characteristics, hence the ‘Beast’ par excel- 
lence. Whether Behemoth is attested in the 
Bible outside of Job 40:15-24 is disputed 
since the Hebrew vocable béhémót by form 
is ambiguous; in most instances it is the 
simple feminine plural of běhēmâ, i.e. 
‘cattle’ or 'beasts.' Other biblical passages 
which may refer to Behemoth are Deut 32: 
24; Isa 30:6; Job 12:7; Ps 73:22. 

II. Although ancient Near Eastern pre- 
cedents for biblical Behemoth have been 
suggested, there are no certain extrabiblical 
references to this figure apart from later 
Jewish and Christian literature and these are 
clearly derivative from the biblical tradition. 


165 


BEHEMOTH 


The only biblical reference to Behemoth 
is Job 40:15 (10), with its attendant descrip- 
tion in vv 15-24 (10-19). But even in this 
case there is no consensus about the nature 
or even the existence of this being. Behe- 
moth is clearly no ordinary beast: an awe- 
some ox-like being that eats grass but is 
equally at home in the water as on land, 
with bones of metal and a tail (or penis?) 
comparable to a mighty cedar tree. This 
‘first of the works of God’ fears neither 
human nor beast; only the deity is capable 
of capturing him. Behemoth is paired with 
the mythic fire-breathing monster —>Levia- 
than, whose description immediately follows 
in Job 40:25-41:26(41:1-34). Both Behe- 
moth and Leviathan function in the second 
speech of -*Yahweh in Job 40-41 to demon- 
strate the futility of Job in questioning the 
ways of the Almighty. 

The interpretation. of Behemoth is so 
highly controverted that any discussion of 
Behemoth must include a history of that 
interpretation. From numerous references to 
Behemoth in postbiblical Jewish and Chris- 
tian literature it is clear that the earliest 
understanding of Behemoth was as some 
sort of unruly mythic creature akin to 
Leviathan, which in the end only God can 
subdue. Here only pseudepigraphic texts 
will be mentioned. (For the further develop- 
ment of the Behemoth tradition in posttan- 
naitic midrashim, see GINZBERG V [1925, 
1953] 41-46, esp. nn. 118, 127.) According 
to 4 Enoch 60:7-9 Leviathan is a female 
monster dwelling in the watery Abyss (com- 
pare Mesopotamian -*Tiamat), while Behe- 
moth is a male monster dwelling in a hidden 
desert of Dundayin, east of Eden. 4 Esdr 
6:49-52 says that Leviathan and Behemoth 
were both created on the fifth day but then 
separated, with Leviathan being given a 
watery domain and Behemoth a home on 
land, until such time as God uses them as 
food for those designated. 2 Bar. 29:4 adds 
the detail that it will be in the messianic age 
that Leviathan and Behemoth come forth 
from their respective places to serve as food 
for the pious remnant. It is obvious that this 
motif is in part derived from the account of 


the end of -Gog of -Magog (Ezek 39:17- 
20). Although Behemoth is not mentioned in 
the NT, Rev 13 patently is informed by the 
Leviathan-Behemoth tradition. In this peri- 
cope two kindred beasts rise up in united 
opposition to the righteous, the one beast 
‘from the ->sea’ (13:1) and ‘another beast 
which rose out of the -earth" (13:11). 

In modern times some commentators 
have attempted to reinforce the mythological 
character of Behemoth, while others have 
attributed to Behemoth a more naturalistic 
origin. Broadly speaking, modern interpreta- 
tions may be grouped into three categories: 
(a) Behemoth is an animal of the natural 
world; (b) there was no Behemoth; (c) 
Behemoth is a distinct mythic being. 

(a) Behemoth as a natural animal: Since 
the seventeenth century the theory has been 
advanced frequently that Behemoth repre- 
sents the hippopotamus. This theory, first 
proposed by S. BocHART (Hierozoicon 2 
[1663] cols. 753-69) remains popular with 
scholars. Proponents even proposed an ety- 
mology for Behemoth as an Egyptian loan- 
word: *p^-ih-hw, 'the ox of the water’. Al- 
though it is now conceded that no such term 
existed in Egyptian or Coptic. the identi- 
fication of Behemoth with the hippopotamus 
has persisted, though now often with a 
mythic overlay. KEEL (1978) adduces 
Egyptian iconographic evidence which por- 
trays the Egyptian king as the incarnation of 
the god -*Horus in the act of subjugating his 
divine foe -*Seth, the latter depicted in the 
form of the red hippopotamus. Strengths of 
this theory are the amphibious nature of 
both the hippopotamus and Behemoth, and 
the analogous methods of capture in each 
case (Job 40:24) RurnREcuT (1971) and 
KuniNA (1979) also build upon this theory. 

Occasionally an identification of Behe- 
moth with an animal other than the hippopo- 
tamus has been proposed. Bochart himself 
had rejected an identification of Behemoth 
as the elephant. G. R. Driver (1956) 
claims that Behemoth is the crocodile (an 
opinion reflected in the NEB translation of 
Job 40). DRivER's theory necessitates the 
creation of a hapax legomenon in Hebrew 


166 


BEHEMOTH 


-ga 


by emending MT ’äšer ‘āśîtî 'immák to 
“imśāk, by analogy to supposed cognates in 
other Semitic languages, Egyptian, Coptic, 
and Greek: Driver further emends ‘he eats 
grass like cattle’ to ‘he eats cattle like 
grass’. CouRoYER (1975) proposed that 
Behemoth was the water buffalo. 

(b) There was no Behemoth: A second 
group of scholars argue that there was no 
such being as Behemoth, though their lines 
of argument diverge radically. N. H. HABEL 
(The Book of Job [OTL; Philadelphia 1985] 
559) concludes that Behemoth is a creation 
of the Joban poct, a symbol to Job that he 
may constitute a threat to -God similar to 
chaotic forces which God created at the 
beginning and which need to be kept subju- 
gated. WoLFers (1990) also understands 
Behemoth as only a symbol, but of the 
errant people of Judah reaching out to 
Assyria in the cighth century sce. N. H. 
Tur-Sinal (The Book of Job [rev. cd., 
Jerusalem 1967] 556-559) dismissed the 
entire notion of Behemoth as nothing more 
than a misreading of Job. He claims that the 
whole of Job 40:15-41:26 is a description of 
Leviathan, with certain verses perhaps out of 
order. He treats béhemót in 40:15 as a 
simple plural, as elsewhere in MT, and 
translates: “Behold, here are the beasts 
which I made with thee [Leviathan], (all) 
that eateth grass as cattle". TUR-SINAI as- 
sumes this to be a literary quotation from an 
ancient creation story and addressed to 
Leviathan as ‘the first of God’s ways’. The 
implication is that all the animals, herbi- 
vores, are food for Leviathan who thought 
to displace God and to rule in God’s place. 

KINNIER WILSON (1975) argues that the 
Behemoth pericope is a parody on what 
would happen if God were to follow Job's 
advice on how to run the cosmos: "(So) 
behold now ‘Behemoth’ which 1 have made 
with thy help". Behemoth is an invented 
name for the resulting incongruent, ridicu- 
lous ‘ox-like’ creature, so afraid of being 
ridiculed by the other creatures that it hides 
in the undergrowth around the -*Jordan. The 
same point is made with Leviathan; just as 
Job cannot presume to play the creator, so 


neither can he act the part of the Hero-god 
who subdues the fire-breathing monster 
Leviathan. The one idea is as ridiculous as 
the other. 

Another group of scholars understand the 
whole of the Behemoth-Leviathan pericope 
as referring to a single being. Building upon 
the Seth-hippopotamus theory of KEEL 
(1978), Ruprecut (1971) claims that the 
Joban poet has built a threefold meaning 
into to figure of Behemoth-Leviathan: the 
naturalistic (hippopotamus); the mythic (pri- 
meval evil in the form of the god Seth, the 
enemy of the creator); and the historical 
(political enemies, historical powers). The 
poet uses the hippopotamus, termed first 
Behemoth and then Leviathan, as his basic 
symbol for historical forces whom Yahweh 
controls and subdues, as elsewhere in the 
Bible. FucHs (1993) posits that Job 40:15- 
41 contains a bipartite description of the 
well-known -chaos monster, named first as 
Behemoth and then as Leviathan. Part One 
of this description (Job 40:15-32) depicts a 
powerful, hippopotamus-like, gigantic beast 
with a passive, almost domestic character 
akin to Mother Earth. The hippopotamus in 
Egyptian tradition is symbolic of both the 
mother goddess and the chaos beast and cor- 
responds to the two poles of the mother 
earth concept: the protective and the devour- 
ing. Part Two (41:5-26), in a heightening of 
imagery, is a deliberate distancing from any 
known animal in favour of the -'dragon- 
like, fire-belching chaos monster. 

(c) Behemoth as a distinct mythic figure: 
Given the obvious pairing of Behemoth with 
Leviathan in the second speech of Yahweh, 
a number of modern scholars see in Behe- 
moth an independent mythic beast along the 
lines of Leviathan, but distinct from the 
latter—much like in early Jewish and Chris- 
tian interpretations. At the end of the ninc- 
teenth century the mythological interpreta- 
tion received renewed impetus from the 
studies of GUNKEL (1895) and others, who 
demonstrated points in common between 
biblical figures and ancient Near Eastern 
mythology. Perhaps most influential of all 
with regard to Behemoth specifically have 


167 


BEHEMOTH 


been the studies of Pope, especially his AB 
commentary on Job (1973:320-322). On the 
basis’ of Ugaritic comparative evidence, 
Pore posited the existence of a prototype of 
Behemoth, as a companion to ltn (Lotan = 
Leviathan) already in Canaanite mythology. 
He called attention in the Ugaritic Baal 
myth to the obscure bovine creature called 
“gl il ‘tk, which he translated as ‘the furious 
bullock of El’ but which more likely should 
be translated as 'El's calf Atik'. Further, 
Pore compared Behemoth to ‘the bull of 
heaven’ slain by Gilgamesh and Enkidu in 
Mesopotamian myth (ANET 83-85). WAKE- 
MAN (1972), too, posited a connection be- 
tween Behemoth and ‘El’s calf Atik’, also 
known as Arshu (ar§). She seems to exceed 
the meagre biblical and Canaanite evidence, 
however, in positing that this second chaos 
monster was specifically an earth monster 
(Ugaritic ars; Hebrew ’eres), which she 
claims is named in texts such as Exod 
15:12; Num 16:32; Ps 46:7; 114:7. J. Day 
(1985:80-84) seems to be more on target. As 
in Job 40-41 where the ox-like Behemoth is 
paired with the sea-dragon Leviathan, so at 
Ugarit El’s calf Atik/Arshu is paired with 
seven-headed sea-dragon, both of whom 
—Anat claims to have defeated: "Surely I 
lifted up the dragon, I...(and) smote the 
crooked serpent, the tyrant with the seven 
heads. I smote Ar{shu] beloved of El, I put 
an end to El's calf Atik" (KTU 1.3 iii:43- 
44). Nevertheless, at Ugarit both of these 
creatures seem to be more at home in the 
sea than on land: "In the sea are Arshu and 
the dragon, May Kothar-and-Hasis drive 
(them) away, May Kothar-and-Hasis cut 
(them) off" (KTU 1.6 vi:51-53). This differ- 
ence should not be overemphasized, how- 
ever, since the basic character of Ugaritic 
Arshu seems to be bovine and Behemoth 
seems as much at home in the water (Job 
40:21-23) as on land (Job 40:15.20). Given 
both such Ugaritic precedents and the 
weight of the mythological interpretations of 
Behemoth in early postbiblical Jewish and 
Christian traditions, it seems impossible to 
avoid the conclusion that Behemoth of Job 
40 is a distinct mythic being possessing 


supernatural characteristics. Behemoth’s char- 
acter and function, however, remain obscure. 
Whether Behemoth is attested elsewhere 
in the Bible is unclear. The two best candi- 
dates are Isa 30:6, “oracle against the Behe- 
moth/Beast of the Negeb" (i.e. against Judah 
courting Egypt); and Ps 73:22, "I have been 
a Behemoth/Beast with you” (i.e. a depre- 
cating self-characterization; see WOLFERS 
1990:478-479). Other, less convincing pro- 
posals include Deut 32:34 (R. Gorpis, The 
Asseverative Kaph in Ugaritic and Hebrew, 
JAOS 63 [1943] 176-78: among the punish- 
ments threatened by God is ‘the teeth of 
Behemoth’ as parallel with -*Resheph and 
other alleged demons); and Job 12:7 (so W. 
L. MICHEL, Job in the Light of Northwest 
Semitic, [BibOr 42; Rome 1987] 279-280). 
IV. Bibliography 
G. J. BOTTERWECK, ARID behêmåh;, ria 
b*hémóth, TDOT 2 (1975) 6-20; B. Cov- 
ROYER, Qui est Béhémoth?, RB 82 (1975) 
418-443; J. Dav, God's Conflict with the 
Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite 
Myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge 
1985) 62-87; G. R. Driver, Mythical Mon- 
sters in the Old Testament, Studi Oriental- 
istici in onore de Giorgio Levi della Vida, 
vol | (Rome 1956) 234-249; G. Fucus, 
Mythos und Hiobdichtung: Aufnahme und 
Umdeutung | altorientalischer Vorstellungen 
(Stuttgart 1993) 225-264: L. GiNZBERG, The 
Legends of the Jews | (Philadelphia 1909, 
1937) 27-30; V (1925, 1953) 41-49, esp. nn. 
118, 119, 127, 141; H. GUNKEL, Schöpfung 
und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen 
1895) 48-67; J. GuTTMANN, Leviathan, 
Behemoth, and Ziz: Jewish Messianic Sym- 
bols in Art, HUCA 39 (1968) 219-230; O. 
KEEL, Jahwes Entgegnung an ljob: Eine 
Deutung von Ijob 38-41 vor dem Hinter- 
grund der zeitgenössischen Bildkunst 
(FRLANT 121; Göttingen 1978); J. V. KıN- 
NIER WILSON, A Return to the Problems of 
Behemoth and Leviathan, VT 25 (1975) 1- 
14; V. KuniNa, Die Gottesreden im Buche 
Hiob (Freiburg 1979) 68-75; M. Pope, Job 
(AB 15; 3rd ed.; Garden City 1973) 320- 
329; E. RUPRECHT, Das Nilpferd im Hiob- 
buch: Beobachtungen zu der sogenannten 


168 


BEL — BELIAL 


zweiten Gottesrede, V7 21 (1971) 209-231; 
M. K. WAKEMAN, God’s Battle with the 
Monster (Leiden 1972) 106-117; D. Worr- 
ERS, The Lord's Second Speech in the Book 
of Job, VT 40 (1990) 474-499. 


B. F. BATTO 


BEL - MARDUK 


BELIAL 5523 ‘wickedness’ 

I. In the manner of other ancient 
peoples, the Hebrews regularly personified 
physical forces and abstract concepts: some- 
times describing them mythically as divin- 
ities. This holds for some OT depictions of 
21772. In 2 Sam 22:5 nahálé béliyya'al *tor- 
rents of Belial' in the sense of 'treacherous 
waters’, are parallel to misbéré mawet 
‘Breakers of Death’: i.e., ‘deadly waves’. 
The personification of death (with môt cf. 
Ugaritic -»Mot, god of death) indicates here 
a similar personification of wickedness, 
treachery, or the like, as Belial. In the 
Psalms recension of the same text (Ps 18:5), 
heblé máwet 'bonds of Death’, stands in 
parallelism with nahdalé béliyya‘al ‘torrents 
of Belial’. These same torrents are referred 
to later in the poem (2 Sam 22:17 = Ps 
18:17) as ‘mighty waters’ (nayyim rabbim): 
a term with mythic associations (MAY 
1955). The Hebrew tradition of personi- 
fication is widened in the Vulgate, which 
transliterates, rather than translates, Belial in 
eight Hebrew passages (Deut 13:13; Judg 
19:22; 1 Sam 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 2 
Sam 16:7; Nah 1:15 (2:1). In 1 Kgs 21:13 
Vulgate reads diabolus (GASTER 1962:377). 

Il. In. most of its OT attestations, 
béliyya‘al functions as an emotive term to 
describe individuals or groups who commit 
the most heinous crimes against the Israclite 
religious or social order, as well as their acts 
(Maag 1965; ROSENBERG 1982:35-40). 
Such crimes include: inciting one’s fellows 
to worship foreign gods (Deut 13:14); per- 
jury (1 Kgs 21:10, 13; Prov 19:28); breach 
of hospitality (Judg 19:22; 1 Sam 25:17); 
lese-majesty (1 Sam 10:27); usurpation (2 
Sam 16:7-8; 20:1); abuse of -*Yahweh's 


sanctuary by female drunkenness (1 Sam 
1:13-17); and the cultic misappropriation 
and sexual harassment of women by priests 
(1 Sam 2:12-22). Refusal to lend money on 
the eve of the Sabbatical year (Deut 15:9) 
falls into the category of heinous deeds 
because it indicates lack of faith in the di- 
vine ability to provide. 

Grammatically, the term reveals some 
though not all features of personification. 
On the one hand, in its twenty-seven occur- 
rences, (none in the tetrateuch) béliyya‘al, 
like the proper names of individuals, is 
never attested in the plural. On the other 
hand, unlike true proper names of persons, 
the vocable takes the definite article in the 
construct chains 7i§ habbéliyya‘al ‘scoun- 
drel, worthless individual’, (1 Sam 25:25; 2 
Sam 16:7) and its plural 'an3é habbéliyya‘al 
'scoundrels' (1 Kgs 21:13). 

Recent studies on Belial (HALAT 128; 
LEwis 1992:654-656) show that there is no 
unanimity with regard to its etymology. The 
rabbis of late antiquity explained béné 
béliyya'al punningly as béné béli ‘él ‘child- 
ren without the yoke’; that is: those who had 
thrown off the yoke of heaven (b. Sanh. 
111b). The medieval Jewish poet and phil- 
osopher Judah Halevi explained the term 
etymologically as a compound of the nega- 
tion bélf and the third-person imperfect jus- 
sive of *LH 'ascend'; and semantically as a 
wish or prayer that malevolence should not 
prosper (WEISER 1976:258). Modern scholar- 
ship has added several other suggestions. 
One suggestion is a modification of Halevi's 
thesis: i.e. the wicked are those who do not 
ascend from the underworld (Cross & 
FREEDMAN 1953:22) This explanation is 
effectively refuted by EMERTON (1987: 214- 
217) who cautions that in OT conceptions 
even the righteous do not ascend from the 
underworld. (Ps 30:4 does not refer to actual 
death, but to recovery from illness. The 
same holds for Ps 107:18, cf. v 21). Another 
interpretation connects the term with the 
verb BL‘ ‘swallow’, followed by afformative 
lamed (MANDELKERN 1896:202). Although 
this. suggestion has the merit of calling 
attention to the fact that the wicked are 


169 


BELIAL 





sometimes depicted as 'swallowers' of the 
righteous (Isa 49:19; Hab 1:13; Prov 1:12; 
Lam 2:16; Cf. Ps 124:3), it must be recalled 
that God is likewise depicted as a ‘swal- 
lower’ (Ps 55:10; Job 2:3). 

It has also been claimed that the term 
actually consists of two homonyms with dif- 
ferent etymologies: běliyyaʻal I ‘under- 
world’, composed (as above) of bl and ‘lh, 
that is, the place from which none ascend; 
béliyya‘al I] ‘wickedness’: composed of the 
negation followed by a cognate of Arabic 
wa‘ala ‘honour’, ‘lineage’ (TuR-SINAI 1954: 
134.) This ingenious solution does not carry 
conviction because there is no need to iso- 
late ‘death’ semantically from ‘malevo- 
lence’. Note the pairing of hammawet and 
hàrá', death and evil, in Deut 30:15. Also, 
the fact that none of the Arabic speaking 
medieval Jewish commentators such as 
Qimhi, ibn Ezra or Saadia suggested a con- 
nection with wa‘ala (which is not the com- 
mon Arabic word for ‘honour’) counsels 
caution. Alternatively the word has been 
linked with Arabic balaga ‘denounce’, 
followed by afformative lamed (DRIVER 
1934:52-53). This last suggestion is most 
unlikely (LEwis 1992:655). 

The most likely explanation of the term 
derives it from the negation bé/f followed by 
a noun *ya'al, related to thc root v'1 ‘to be 
worthy, to be of value’ (see e.g. PEDERSEN 
1926:413; GASTER 1973). It will be recalled 
that Biblical Hebrew and Ugantic provide 
structural parallels in words in which the 
first element is a negation and the second a 
noun. Note for example, Ugaritic blmt 
‘immortality’, literally, ‘without death’, or 
bilimá ‘nothingness’ (GasTER 1973; cf. 
analogously, ’al-mdwet ‘deathlessness’. [Prov 
12:28]). The objection sometimes raised 
(Tur-SINAt 1954; ROSENBERG 198:235) that 
‘useless, worthless’, is not a strong enough 
term to characterize béné béliyya‘al is con- 
tradicted by internal biblical evidence. Thus 
bal-vófilü, *they are ineffectual’, is applied 
to idols (Isa 44:9; cf. lébilti hó'il in 44:10 
ibid). In addition, forms of the verb v*L prc- 
ceded by the negation /6’ synonymous with 
bal, are used regularly to characterize 


foreign gods (1 Sam 12:21; Isa 44:9; Jer 
2:8.11; 16:19) as well as idol manufacturers 
(Isa 44:10. cf. Hab 2:18) and false prophets 
(Jer 23:32) The same construction is 
applied to -*'lies' (Jer 7:8); and to ineffec- 
tual military allies (Isa 30:5-6). Thus béné 
béliyya‘al are ‘worthless men’ and a bat 
béliyya‘al (1 Sam 1:16) is a ‘worthless 
woman’. These worthless characters are 
apparently not different from béné-‘awld 
‘the wicked’ (2 Sam 7:10; 3:34; 1 Chr 17:9). 
In fact, the Peshitta often translates béliyya- 
‘al by ‘wi? ‘wickedness’ (Judg 19:22; 20:13; 
| Sam 30:22; 2 Sam 16:7; 22:5; 23:6; Pss 
18:5; 30:22: 41:9; 101:3). 

Further confirmation of this philological 
analysis may be adduced from Palestinian 
Jewish Aramaic in which worthy individuals 
are termed bawy dhnyyh, that is ‘beneficient 
ones’, ‘useful people’, while their opposite 
numbers are NIVIITD PP, an Aramaic loan- 
word from Greek xaxonpáyuoveg ‘evil 
doers’ (LIEBERMANN & ROSENTHAL 1983: 
xxxiv). 

III. In pseudepigraphic literature, Belial 
is especially well-attested (LEwis 1992:655) 
as the proper name of the -*Devil, the 
powerful opponent of God, who accuses 
people and causes them to sin. This dualism 
is rooted in Zoroastrianism, the religion of 
the succesive Iranian empires within whose 
borders vast numbers of Jews lived for a 
millennium, in which Drug ‘falsehood’, 
‘wickedness’, (personified already in the 
inscriptions of Darius the Great [522-486 
BCE]) is opposed to Asa ‘righteousness’, 
‘justice’, likewise personified, one of the 
bounteous immortals (GAsTER 1973:429; 
Boyce 1982:120). The regular form in the 
Pseudepigrapha, Beliar, and once, (Testa- 
ment of Levi 18:4) Belior, may be a punning 
explanation of the Devil's name as ‘light- 
ness’ (béli ?ór) because, in opposition to 
God's way, Belial's is the way of darkness 
(T. Levi 19:1). It may be observed that, 
according the Zoroastrian creation account, 
the Bundahishn, Ohrmezd (Ahura Mazda) 
dwells in endless light (asar rošnīh) while 
Ahreman (Angra Mainyu) dwells in endless 
darkness (asar tdrigih). 


170 


BELTU 


Belial is very well attested in Hebrew 
texts from Qumran: especially in the War 
Scroll (1QM) and the Thankgiving Scroll 
(IQH). They describe an ongoing struggle 
between good and evil. On the human plane, 
the Teacher of Righteousness represents the 
forces of -light and the good; while his 
opponent, the wicked priest, represents the 
forces of darkness and evil. This same 
struggle is depicted mythically as a battle on 
high between the angel -*Michacl and Belial 
(SCHIFFMAN 1989:50). The present age is 
the time of Belial's rule (mmmslt bly'l). He is 
the leader of ‘people of the lot of Belial’ 
*nSy gwrl bly‘l) who are opposed to ’nšy 
gwrl ?! *the people of the lot of God’ (1QS 
1:16-2:8). In this literature too, Belial leads 
the forces of darkness and malevolence 
(Lewis 1992:655). According to one Qum- 
ran text (CD 4:12-15), the coming of Belial 
would not be permanent. After a momentous 
struggle, God would eventually bring about 
the permanent annihilation (Al: “wlmym) of 
Belial and all of the forces of evil, both 
human and angelic (IQM 1:4-5, 13-16). 

The association of Belial with darkness is 
found in Belial’s single attestation in the 
New Testament (2 Cor 6:14-15): “What 
partnership can righteousness have with 
wickedness? Can light associate with dark- 
ness? What harmony (symphonésis) has 
—Christ with Beliar or a believer with an 
unbeliever?" 

In Sybilline Oracles 3:63-64, a text 
roughly comtemporary with 2 Corinthians, it 
is prophesied that Beliar will come ek 
Sebasténón. Inasmuch as Latin ‘Augustus’ 
was rendered in Greek by 'Sebastos', the 
verse has been construed as reference to the 
diabolical character of Nero, descendent of 
Augustus (CoLLINS 1983:360, 363). 

IV. Bibliography 
M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism 1-2 
(Leiden 1975, 1982); J. J. CoLiins in J. H. 
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament 
Pseudepigraphy | (Garden City 1983); F. 
M. Cross & D. N. FREEDMAN, A Royal 
Psalm of Thanksgiving: If Samuel 22 = 
Psalm 18, JBL 72 (1953) 15-34; G. R. 
Driver, Hebrew Notes, ZAW 52 (1934) 51- 


66; J. A. EMERTON, Sheol and the Sons of 
Belial, EncJud 4 (Jerusalem 1973) 428-429; 
H. KosMatLa, The Three Nets of Belial, 
ASTI 4 (1965) 91-113; T. Lewis, Belial, 
ABD | (1992) 654-656; S. LIEBERMAN & E. 
S. ROSENTHAL, Yerushalmi Nezigin (Jerusa- 
lem 1983); V. Maac, Belija‘al im Alten 
Testament, 7Z 21 (1965) 287-299; S. 
MANDELKERN, Hekal Haqqodesh (Leipzig 
1896); H. May, Some Cosmic Connotations 
of Mayim Rabbim, ‘Many Waters’, JBL 74 
(1955) 9-21; J. PEDERSEN, /srael, its Life 
and Culture (London 1926); R. ROSEN- 
BERG, The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial’, Pro- 
ceedings of the Eight World Congress of 
Jewish Studies | (Jerusalem 1982) 35-40; L. 
SCHIFFMAN, The Eschatological Community 
of Qumran (Atlanta 1989); N. H. Tur- 
Sina, 97752, EncMiqr 2 (Jerusalem 1954) 
132-133; A. WEISER, /bn Ezra Perushe 
Hattorah le-Rabbenu Avraham ibn Ezra 3 
(Jerusalem 1976). 


S. D. SPERLING 


BELTU *772 

I. The name of the Babylonian goddess 
Beltu (var. Belit, Belti) is the feminine form 
of Bel (‘Lord’), and means ‘Lady’. She is 
identified either with -Ishtar or Sarpanitu. 
Her mention in the Hebrew Bible is conjec- 
tural; P. DE LAGARDE (Symmicta [Góttingen 
1877] 105) was the first to emendate bilri in 
Isa 10:4 into bélti, *my Lady’. The proposal 
cannot be seen in isolation from the 
emendation, in the same verse, of "assír 
(‘prisoner’) into ?osír (Osiris). 

Hi. Since the name Beltu is not really a 
name but an epithet (‘Lady’), the identi- 
fication with a specific deity is beset with 
problems. Used in genetival constructions 
such as Belet-Akkadi or Belet-ekallim, the 
term “Lady” is an element in the name (or 
epithet) of numerous Babylonian and Assyr- 
ian (then Bela) goddesses (CAD B 189- 
190). The goddess to have been designated 
most frequently by this epithet, both in 
Sumerian (nin, Emesal gašan) and Akkad- 
ian (bēltu), is no doubt Ishtar (WILCKE 1976- 
80; cf. AkkGE 333-334). Many formerly in- 


171 


BELTU 





dependent goddesses, such as Bélet-ili and 
Bélet-mati, were later increasingly identified 
with Ishtar as well (WILCKE 1976-80:77a). 

Since ‘Bel’ came to acquire the status of 
a second name of -*Marduk, it could bc 
argued that the absolute use of Beltu should 
be taken to refer to Marduk’s consort, i.e. 
Sarpanitu (‘the silver-shining one’). In 
various texts, indeed, since the time of the 
Sargonids and notably in some younger 
New Year rituals, Sarpanitu is referred to 
simply as Bélti, ‘My Lady’ (ZIMMERN 
1926). Yet though Sarpanitu is at times 
referred to as Beltu (or as Bélet-Babili, 
‘Lady of Babylon’, AKAGE 452), the identi- 
fication is not universally valid. If Beltu 
were indeed mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, 
the current Western Mesopotamian associa- 
tion with Ishtar would be more natural. In 
Palmyra, the goddess Belti seems indeed to 
have been associated primarily with -Tam- 
muz; in later times too, then, she was identi- 
fied with Ishtar—presumably also when 
associated with Bel (HOFTIZZER 1968:46 n. 
134; J. TEIXIDOR, The Pantheon of Palmyra 
[EPRO 79; Leiden 1979) 88). 

The West-Semitic form of Beltu is 
>Baalat (blt), grammatically the feminine 
counterpart of -*Baal. At Palmyra, she was 
worshipped under the name Baaltak (b‘Itk, 
“Your Ladyship’) and identified as ’S1r’, ‘the 
goddess’, literally ‘the Ishtar’. She is indeed 
the equivalent of the Mesopotamian Ishtar, 
the female deity of heaven (TEIXIDOR, The 
Pantheon of Palmyra, 60-61). At Emar, the 
population knew a goddess dNIN-KUR(-RA), 
pronounced Ba‘alta-matim (AEM 1/1 no. 
256:16), an Amorite deity regarded as the 
consort of Dagan (J.-M. DURAND, La cité- 
état d'Imár à l'époque des rois de Mari, 
MARI 6 [1990] 39-92, esp. 89-90). It should 
be noted, moreover, especially in view of 
the—conjectural—conjunction of Belti and 
Osiris in Isa 10:4, that Baalat as well as 
Baalat-Gebal, ‘Lady-of-Byblos’, were both 
identified with the Egyptian goddess 
-*Hathor (PuEcH 1986-87; J. G. GRIFFITHS, 
Apuleius of Madauros. The  Isis-Book 
[EPRO 39; Leiden 1975] 38). 

III. According to the emendation by DE 


LAGARDE (Symmicta [Gottingen 1877] 105), 
accepted by way of a proposal in the appar- 
atus criticus of the BHS, Isa 10:4 should be 
rendered “Belti is writhing, Osiris is in 
panic" (Belti kóra'at hat "Ósir. DE LAGARDE 
translated “Belthis is sinking, Osiris has 
been broken”). Though none of the versions 
supports the emendation, it is not impossible 
orthographically. Yet it does not fit the con- 
text (see K. BUDDE, Zu Jesaja 1-5, ZAW 50 
[1932] 38-72, esp. 69-70). Assuming that v 
4 takes up the rhetorical question of v 3 
("To whom will you flee for help, and 
where will you leave your wealth?"), Belti 
and Osiris either arc or stand for the powers 
from which help is expected. Since the pair- 
ing of these deities is unusual, also if Belti 
should stand for Hathor, a literal interpreta- 
tion of the emendated verse is not very pos- 
sible. To say that the hypothetical Belti 
stands here for —Isis is at odds with the 
identifications current at the time (pace e.g. 
K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja [Tübingen 
1900] 100; B. DuHM, Das Buch Jesaja 
[Góttingen 1968, 5th ed.] 97). Nor is there a 
trace of the cult of these deities elsewhere in 
the Hebrew Bible. A symbolical interpreta- 
tion cannot be ruled out, however: Belti 
could stand for Assyria, and Osiris for 
Egypt. Yet this interpretation also, though 
possible, is unlikely: the customary symbols 
for Assyria and Egypt would be -*Assur and 
—Rahab, respectively. The reading of the 
MT as it stands makes better sense: “(they 
have no option) but to crouch among the 
prisoners of war, or fall among the slain”. 
The parallel use of tahat is a serious argu- 
ment not to separate the first i351 into ri en 
ri. DE LAGARDE's proposal, then, is on the 
whole more ingenious than convincing (for 
a fuller discussion see H. WILDBERGER, 
Jesaja, Vol. 1 [BKAT _X/1; Neukirchen- 
Vluyn 1972] 179-180). 
IV. Bibliography 

J. HorruzER, Religio aramaica (Leiden 
1968) 46-47; E. PuECH, The Canaanite 
Inscriptions of Lachish and their Religious 
Background, Te/ Aviv 13-14 (1986-87) 13- 
25; C. WILCKE, Inanna/Istar, RLA 5 (1976- 
80) 74-87; H. ZIMMERN, Beli (Béltija, 


172 


BES — BETHEL 


Béletja), eine, zunächst sprachliche, Studie 
zur Vorgeschichte des — Madonnakults, 
Oriental Studies dedicated to Paul Haupt 
(ed. C. Adler & A. Embler; Baltimore/Leip- 
zig 1926) 281-292. 


K. VAN DER TOORN 


BES 

I. The name of the Egyptian god or 
demon Bes (Copt BHC; Gk Bnoas) occurs 
in the personal name bésáy in Ezra 2:49, cf. 
Neh 7:52. In Egypt this divine name was 
also often used as a personal name. 

Il. The god or demon Bes was 
represented as a bandy legged deformed 
dwarf or more precisely as a lion-man 
(RoMANO 1980). His ugly human face, his 
animal hair or manes. ears and tail are in- 
deed more likely those of a lion than of a 
human dwarf. He dances, plays musical in- 
struments such as harp, flute and tambour- 
ine, or brandishes knife and sword to avert 
evil and to protect the pregnant and birth- 
giving mother. He sometimes shows an 
enormous phallus and may make dirty jokes 
(MALAISE 1990). Often a plurality of Bes- 
gods is represented, figuring in an erotic 
context. These erotic representations were 
supposed to bring about pregnancy and 
childbirth. L'amour pour l'amour, as well as 
l'at pour l'art, was largely unknown or 
unacceptable as a cultural expression in an 
ancient culture such as Egypt, although 
contraceptives were not unknown or for- 
bidden (DERCHAIN 1981). 

Several explanations of the name Bes 
have been given (MALAISE 1990:691-692). 
His name has been connected with verbs 
Meaning “to initiate", "to emerge" and "to 
protect". Very recently, arguments have 
been brought forward that a Bes means a 
prematurely born child or foctus, which was 
enveloped in a lion's skin and kept in a 
basket of reeds or rushes (MEEKS 1992; 
BULTE 1991:102.108-109). So it seems 
possible that the dancing, jesting and some- 
times aggressive gnome or lion-man Bes 
was a personification of a prematurely born 
child or foetus, who protects mother and 


child. It may be that the personal name Bes 
was considered to be a fitting name for pre- 
maturely born children. 

IH. Except for the PN bésay, Bes is not 
attested in the OT. In epigraphical Hebrew, 
Bes occurs twice as a theophoric element in 
a PN: q[.]b$ (Samaria Ostracon 1:5; Prob- 
ably Egyptian 'Bes created', A. LEMAIRE, 
Inscriptions Hébraiques 1 [LAPO 9; Paris 
1977] 54); bsy (R. HEsTRIN & M. Dayaci- 
MENDELS, /nscribed Seals (Jerusalem 1979] 
No. 54). On Pithos A from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud 
two figurines occur which can be interpreted 
as Bes-depictions probably a male with a bi- 
sexual feminized variant (KEEL & UEHLIN- 
GER 1992:244-248). Bes-amulets from the 
Iron-Age have been excavated at e.g. 
Lachish, Tell-Jemme and Gezer (KEEL & 
UEHLINGER 1992:248-251). The archaeol- 
ogical evidence suggests that Bes was 
known in Palestine in the Iron Age as an 
apotropaic demon esp. in times of pregnancy 
and birth. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. Butte, Talismans égyptiens d'heureuse 
maternité (Paris 1991); P. DERCHAIN, 
Observations sur les erotica, The Sacred 
Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara (ed. G. 
T. Martin; London 1981) 166-170; O. KEEL 
& C. UEHLINGER, Göttinnen, Götter und 
Gottessymbole (Freibourg, Basel & Wien 
1992) 244-255; M. MaLaisE, Bes et les 
croyances solaires, Studies in Egyptology 
Presented to M. Lichtheim (Jerusalem 1990) 
I1. 690-729 [& lit]; D. MEEKS, Le nom du 
dieu Bes et ses implications mythologiques, 
The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt. Studies 
Presented to L. Kdékosy = StAeg 14 (Buda- 
pest 1992) 423-436; J. F. RoMaANo, The 
Origin of the Bes-Image, Bulletin of the 
Egyptological Seminar 2 (1980) 39-56. 


H. TE VELDE 


BETHEL VNTC) 

I. The name of this deity must be 
explained in accordance with Heb bét-'el, 
i.c. ‘house/temple of god/El’ (^God, EI), cf. 
also the name of the town Bethel in central 
Palestine (former Liiz, see Judg 1:23). The 


173 


BETHEL 


name Bethel is a shortened version of the 
designation ‘(El of the) House of El’, a kind 
of tautology or hypostasis not unfamiliar in 
Semitic god-names. This name originally 
did not point to the town of Bethel, but may 
have referred to open cult-places, as the 
aetiology of Bethel in the OT suggests (Gen 
28:10-19). The god is known from the 7th 
century BCE, mostly in an Aramaic con- 
text—he replaces the ancient Semitic god El 
who from this time onwards is absent in 
personal names. Bethel is unknown in 
Ugarit. 

II. Together with Anat-Bethel, i.e. ‘Anat 
(the consort) of Bethel’, Bethel is mentioned 
for the first time in 675/4 BCE among the 
oath-gods in the treaty between Baal I of 
Tyre and the Assyrian king Esarhaddon: 
dBa-a-a-ti-DINGIR"*S —— dA.na-ti-ba-a-[a-ti- 
pDiNG]iR" 65 (SAA 2, 5 iv:6'. The ortho- 
graphy of the text suggests an Aramaic 
uncontracted name-form; the writing 
DINGIR™S for "il/el follows normal Assyr- 
ian scribal convention). Therefore there is 
doubt that Bethel was a specific Phoenician 
god, in spite of the fact that the name 
É.DINGIR-a-di-ir was that of a Phoenician 
(cf. R. ZADOK, BASOR 230 [1978] 61). The 
list of the oath-gods in the treaty continues 
with the "gods of Assyria and the gods of 
Akkad", i.e. with the Mesopotamian deities, 
but this does not mean that Bethel is of 
Mesopotamian origin. Rather it may have 
been a deity venerated by the Aramaeans. 
Therefore it is not surprising that several 
Aramaic personal names of the Neo- 
Babylonian and Achaemenid period in 
Babylonia and in Egypt are composed with 
this name of a deity: ¢£.DINGIR-ZALAG)’, 
‘Bethel is my light’ (BE 9, 75:5; cf. byr'l- 
nwry, I. N. ViNNIKOV, Palestinskij Sbornik 
67 [1959] 208); £.pINGIR™*.da-la-? PBS 
2/1 222,11, cf. byr'ldiny, ‘Bethel saved me’ 
KAI 221 rA etc. (cf. R. Zapok, On West 
Semites in Babylonia [Jerusalem 1978] 60- 
61; M. D. CoocAN, West Semitic Personal 
Namés [HSM 2; Missoula 1976] 48-49; M. 
MARAQTEN, Die semitischen Personen- 
namen in den alt- und reichsaramäischen 
Inschriften [Hildesheim/ Zürich/ New York 


1988] 137-139; W. KORNFELD, Onomastica 
aramaica aus Agypten [Wien 1978] 43). 
The Aramaeans in contact with the 
Jewish community at Syenc/Elephantine in 
Egypt worshipped this deity in a temple 
which is mentioned in a letter (found at 
Hermopolis) together with the temple of the 
—Queen of Heaven (BRESCIANI & KAMIL 
1966:no. 4; A. JagbDENI & B. PORTEN, 
Textbook of Aramaic Documents from 
Ancient Egypt | [Jerusalem 1986] A2.1,1). 
The god Bethel is further on invoked as 
—saviour in a lengthy prayer of an Aramaic 
community in Egypt which is partly pre- 
served on Papyrus Amherst 63 in Demotic 
script but Aramaic language (J. W. Wes- 
sELIUS & W. C. Detsman, TUAT II 
[1986/91] 930-932 [& lit]). The god is fur- 
ther to be found—worshipped besides 
-Yahweh by the Jews of Elephantine—as 
ESem-Bethel ‘Name of Bethel’ and Anat- 
Bethel (A. CowLey, Aramaic Papyri of the 
fifth Century B.C. [Oxford 1923] 22 VII 
122-124), probably a kind of triad with 
Anat-Bethel as the mother and ESem-Bethel 
as the son. A judicial declaration (CowLy 
[1923] 7: A. JARDENI & B. PORTEN, Text- 
book of Aramaic Documents from Ancient 
Egypt | [Jerusalem 1986] B7.2,7-8) refers to 
a certain Herem-Bethel which may have 
been another hypostasis of the Aramaic god. 
But besides these references the god's name 
is present as theophoric element in personal 
names only (see B. PORTEN, Archives from 
Elephantine [Los Angeles 1968] 328-331). 
The theogony of Philo of Byblos, trans- 
mitted to us by Eusebius (Praep. Evang. | 
9,16 = FGH Ill C 2.790, F 2,16), acknowl- 
edges four sons of Ouranos (-*Heaven; 
—Varuna) and Ge: Elos (or Kronos), 
Baitylos, Dagon (or Siton) and Atlas. The 
second is Bethel, but nothing relevant is told 
about him. But some paragraphs later (9,23 
= FGH III C 2,790 F 2,23) it is reported that 
Ouranos contrived baitylia, namely 'ani- 
mated stones’. Here the author connects the 
god Bethel with the well known bairyloi 
(2Baetyl), the stone monuments broadly 
used for cultic purposes in the Semitic 
world. But this reference is no proof for a 


174 


BLOOD 


connection between these monuments and 
the god Bethel—Baitylos. 

The latest reference to a “Zeus Betylos, 
(god) of the dwellers along the Orontes" can 
be found in a 3rd cent. CE inscription from 
Dura Europos (H. SEYRIG, Excavations at 
Dura-Europos IV [New Haven 1933] 68 no. 
168) and it may refer, too, to a hypostasis of 
Bethel in an inscription from Kafr Nabo in 
the Antiochene named swmnbety! in a Greek 
inscription (/GLS II 215-216 no. 376). 

III. Whether the Israelites in their home- 
land also worshipped the god Bethel is dis- 
puted, but Jer 48:13 (in the prophecy against 
Moab) “And Moab shall be betrayed by 
Chemosh, as Israel was betrayed by Bethel, 
a god in whom he trusted” points in this 
direction. lt should be noted that the compa- 
rison with the highest Moabite god Kamoš 
(-*Chemosh) suggests that Bethel played a 
prominent role in Israel. Further evidence 
for this cult may be found in prophetic sayings 
e.g. Amos 3:14; 5:5; Hos 4:15 (with the 
nick-name Bet-Aven) and 10:15, although 
here the place-name Bethel may be meant. 

IV. Bibliography 
M. L. Barre, The God-List in the Treaty 
berween Hannibal and Philip V of Mace- 
donia (Baltimore/London 1983) 43-50; R. 
BORGER, Anat-Bethel, VT 7 (1957) 102-104; 
Dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Bible 
(Tumhout 1987) 205 [& lit]; E. BRESCIANI 
& M. Kamit, Le lettere aramaiche di 
Hermopoli (Roma 1966); O. EIsSFELDT, Der 
Gott Bethel, ARW 28 (1930) 1-30 (= KS | 
{1963} 206-233) [& lit}; J. P. Hyatt, The 
Deity Bethel in the Old Testament, JAOS 59 
(1939) 81-98; J. T. MiLIK, Les papyrus 
araméens d'Hermoupolis et les cultes syro- 
phéniciens. 2. Dieu Béthel, Bib 48 (1967) 
565-577; N. NA'AMAN, Beth-aven, Bethel 
and early Israelite sanctuanes, ZDPV 103 
(1987) 13-21; A. VINCENT, La réligion des 
Judéo-araméens d'Eléphantine (Paris 1937) 
562-677; S. P. VLEEMING & J. W. Wes- 
SELIUS, Bethel the Saviour, JEOL 28 
(1983/4) 110-140. 


W. ROLLIG 


BLOOD C5 

I. Although nowhere deified, blood, 
Hebr dam, is seen in the OT as a liquid 
essential for animal and human life. In Uga- 
ritic and Mesopotamian texts, mention is 
made of divine blood. In personal names 
from Ebla and Emar the theophoric element 
Damu is attested. The name of this deity has 
incorrectly been connected with the Semitic 
noun dn, ‘blood’. The name of the deity, 
however, is not etymologically related to the 
noun mentioned, but should be construed as 
related to the root D'M, ‘to support" (LiPiNs- 
KI 1987:92-94). 

H. In Ugaritic texts -*Anat threatens 
>El that she will attack him, saying “I shall 
make his grey hair run with blood” (KTU 
1.3 v:1-3; v:23-25). This and comparable 
expressions should be understood in the fra- 
mework of the anthropomorphic depiction 
of the divine. According to the Babylonian 
story of the flood, humankind was made 
from the flesh and blood of the slaughtered 
god Wé-ila, mixed to clay by Nintu after 
which the lgigi spat upon the clay. From 
this clay seven couples of humans were 
made (Atr. 1 208-260). 

A deity Damu is known as theophoric 
element in personal names from Ebla (KRE- 
BERNIK 1988:80; DaHoop 1981; F. Pompo- 
NIO, UF 15 [1983] 149, 156), Mari (Bi-in- 
Da-mu, A. 3652 1:61, cf. ARM XVI 1) and 
Emar (A. ArcHi, MARI 6 [1990] 24-25). 
The name of this deity has been interpreted 
as meaning ‘blood’ in the sense of 
‘raciaV/family relationship’ (KREBERNIK 
1988:80; BoNEcur 1997:480-481). 

In Southern Mesopotamia, especially at 
Isin and Girsu, a Sumerian deity da.mu has 
been worshipped up to the Old Babylonian 
period. da.mu is mainly a healing deity with 
the capacity to drive away demons (BLACK 
& GREEN 1992) but he sometimes has, like 
-'Tammuz and -*Adonis, the character of a 
vegetation-deity (T. JACOBSEN, Toward the 
Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on 
Mesopotamian History and Culture (Cam- 
bridge 1970] 324-327). The North-Syrian 
Damu and the Sumerian da.mu have been 
treated as two different deities. LIPIŃSKI 


175 


BOAZ 


(1987), however, has offered a rather con- 
vincing theory according to which the two 
are manifestations of one deity. The theop- 
horic element Damu should not be interpre- 
ted as meaning ‘blood’, but be construed as 
a form of the verb D'M, 'to support; to 
guide; to watch’, with a decayed fricative 
laryngal. Lipifiski bases his theory on the 
equation of the Mari name Bi-in-Da-mu 
with the Ugaritic personal name bn.d‘m 
(KTU 3.7) and on the observation that in 
later Phoenician and pre-Islamic Arabic 
onomastics the theophoric element d‘m is 
attested. Moreover, he presents several ex- 
amples where an original ‘ayin has decayed 
in Eblaite writing. Although a noun damu, 
‘blood’, is attested in Eblaite, the name of 
the deity Damu has nothing in common with 
‘blood’, since it should be construed as 
meaning ‘Supporter; guider; watcher’ or the 
like. Finally, he alleges that, the deity 
Da(‘)mu being of Semitic origin, the Sumer- 
ian da.mu could be interpreted as a Sumer- 
ian form of a Semitic deity. 

Na’AMAN (1990:248-250) has interpreted 
the enigmatic name for a deity in EA 84:33 
AN.DA.MU-ia as an epithet: DINGIR da-mu-ia, 
‘my goddess; my vitality’, against the tradi- 
tional view that this deity could be equated 
with Tammuz (c.g. O. SCHROEDER, OLZ 18 
[1915] 291-293). In view of Lipifski’s ana- 
lysis the goddess could better be interpreted 
as ‘my divine support/guidance’ or the like. 

III. The noun dam occurs some 360 
times in the Hebrew Bible referring to the 
blood of human beings and animals. Divine 
blood is never mentioned in the OT. Blood 
is seen as a necessary element for life (see 
e.g. B. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, TWAT 2, 248- 
266; S. D. SPERLING, ABD 1, 761-763). A 
relation with the deity Da(')mu is far from 
likely. In the NT the blood shed by Christ 
is sometimes interpreted as having reconci- 
liatory force. 

IV. Bibliography 
J. BLack & A. GREEN, Gods, Demons and 
Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London 
1992) 57; M. BoNEcHI, Lexique et idéolo- 
gie royale à l'époque Proto-Syrienne, MARI 
8 (1997) 477-535; M. J. Dauoop, Il dio 


Damu nelle tavolette di Ebla, Sangue e 
antropologia Biblica (Rome 1981) 97-104; 
M. KREBERNIK, Die Personenamen der 
Ebla-Texte: Ein Zwischenbilanz (BBVO 7; 
Berlin 1988); E Lipinsxi, Le dieu Damu 
dans l'onomastique d'Ébla: Les pharyngales 
fricatives en fin de syllabe fermée, Ebla 
1975-1985: Dieci anni di studi linguistici e 
filologici (L. Cagni ed.; Napels 1987) 91-99; 
N. NA'AMAN, On Gods and Scribal Tradi- 
tions in the Amama Letters, UF 22 (1990) 
247-255 


B. BECKING 


BOAZ 1223 

I. Boaz is the name given to one of the 
pillars flanking the entrance to the temple of 
Solomon (1 Kgs 7:21). The name has been 
interpreted as a corruption of the name 
->Baal (H. GRESSMANN, Dolmen, Masseben 
und Napflócher, ZAW 29 [1909] 122; for 
other examples see Scott 1939:145-146) or, 
alternatively, as an epithet of Baal (BRus- 
TON 1924). 

II. The only proposal that takes Boaz as 
an independent surname or epithet of a deity 
has been made by BRusrTON (1924). He 
based himself on a Neo-Punic inscription 
from Tunesia, in which he read a reference 
to "Anat [FZN, sic] the daughter of Boaz”. 
Bruston concluded that the epithet Boaz (‘In 
him there is power’) belonged to Baal, 
which deity he also found mentioned else- 
where in the text. More recent editions of 
the text (J.-G. FÉVRIER, Sem 4 [1951-52] 19- 
24; KAI 160) have shown hat Bruston's 
reading is erroneous. Instead of P2 PZN 
("Anat daughter of") one has to read the 
word HN (which means 'capital', ‘sum 
of money’), whereas D2 is in fact the 
beginning of the expression C'22 z bhym, 
'at the (life-)ime of (see DONNER & 
RóLLiG, KA/ Il, Literaturnachtrige und 
Ergánzungen, pp. 340-341). 

III. The various proposals to take the 
name Boaz as a reference to a known deity 
(usually Baal), either as a corruption of the 
latter's name or as an epithet, are based on 
the assumption that the name Boaz as it 


176 


BOSHET — BREASTS AND WOMB 


stands makes poor sense. If such were the 
case, however, the rule lectio difficilior 
probabilior would advise against texual 
emendation. Moreover, the name of the 
other pillar, Jachin, does not favour the 
hypothesis that Boaz is a divine name; 
Jachin rather looks like the beginning of a 
solemn wish (‘May he render firm ...*). In 
the versions, there is no real support for a 
correction of 122 into Y3. Also the more 
fanciful variations on this solution (such as 
the suggestion that Boaz is an abbreviation 
of Ba‘al-‘az, ‘Baal is strong’ [MONTGOMERY 
1951] or a corruption of Baal-zebul, or even 
of -*>Tammuz [see Scorr 1939:145-146]) 
reflect a scepticism about the reliability of 
the Masoretic text that seems unfounded—at 
least, in this case. 

Though the cultic nature of the pillars 
Jachin and Boaz is beyond doubt, there is no 
reason to believe that they represented dei- 
ties. Their symbolic significance is generally 
acknowledged (MEYERS 1992). The massive 
stone stelae probably had phallic associa- 
tions and were—pre-Solomonic?—symbols 
of fertility and offspring. Originally, the 
name Boaz may well have been vocalized 
differently: bé‘6z NN, ‘By the strength (or 
potency) of NN'. It could have been the 
opening of a traditional formula pronounced 
at the occasion of royal rituals performed at 
the entrance of the temple (c.g. SCOTT 
1939). As it stands now, the name means ‘In 
him there is strength’ (MULDER 1986). 

IV. Bibliography 
E. BLocn-SmrrH, “Who is the King of 
Glory?" Solomon's Temple and Its Symbo- 
lism, Scripture and Other Artefacts: Essays 
on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of 
Philip J. King (ed. M. D. Coogan et al.; 
Louisville 1994) 18-31; C. BRUSTON, 
L’inscription des deux colonnes du temple 
de Salomon, ZAW 42 (1924) 153-154; C. 
MEYERS, Jachin and Boaz, ABD 3 (1992) 
597-598; J. A. MONTGOMERY, The Books of 
Kings (ICC; Edinburgh 1951) 170-171; M. 
J. MuLDER, Die Bedeutung von Jachin und 
Boaz in | Kón. 7:21 (2 Chr. 3:17). Tradition 
and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early 
Christian Literature. Essays in Honour of 


Jürgen C. H. Lebram (ed. J. W. van Henten 
et al.; Leiden 1986) 19-26; R. B. Y. Scorr, 
The Pillars Jachin and Boaz, JBL 58 (1939) 
143-149. 


K. VAN DER TOORN 


BOSHET -> BASHTU 


BREASTS AND WOMB cnm OT 

I. The expression Sddayim — wáràáliam, 
‘Breasts and Womb’, (Gen 49:25) has been 
interpreted as an epithet echoing Uganitic 
titles of the goddesses ~>Anat and -*Asherah 
(VawrER 1955; M. O° Connor, Hebrew 
Verse Structure {Winona Lake 1980] 178; 
SmitH 1990:17). 

Il. In a para-mythological text from 
Ugarit, it is said that the deities —>Shahar 
and -*Shalim are to be seen as those ‘suck- 
ing the nipple (ap; lit. ‘nose’) of the breast 
(dd//zd) of Athiratu' (KTU 1.23:24.59.61). 
In the epic of Keret, Ilu promises Keret that 
his future son will ‘suck the breast (td) of 
Virgin Anat’ (KTU 1.15 ii:27). In a compar- 
able text, Anat is twice called the ‘Breast 
(td) of the Nations’ (KTU 1.13:19-22); she 
is cast in the role of a Dea Nutrix of deities 
and nations. In the epic of Keret, Anat is 
depicted as the ‘wet-nurse of the gods’, 
mšnąt ilm, (KTU 1.15 ii:28). In different 
texts, Anat is called rim, ‘Womb, Mamsel’, 
(KTU 1.6 i:5,27; 1.15 ii:6;  1.23:13.16; 
KonPEL 1990). 

The imagery of the goddess as a wet- 
nurse occurs also in Neo-Assyrian prophet- 
ical texts. -*Ishtar of Arbela is presented 
several times as the ‘good wet-nurse 
(muséniqtu déqtu) of king Ashurbanipal’. In 
the text K 1285:32-34 (J. A. Craic, Assyr- 
tan and Babylonian Religious Texts | [Lcip- 
zig 1895] No. 5) she is presented as having 
four breasts to feed and still the king (WtiP- 
PERT 1985:61-64). Here too, ‘breasts’ have 
no erotic connotation but symbolize the 
caring character of the goddess. 

Archaeological findings from Iron Age I 
in Israel have brought to light a great num- 
ber of plaque figurines showing a nude female 
figure with her arms sometimes pointing at 


177 


BROTHER 


her breasts and sometimes at her womb (see 
e.g. WINTER 1983:96-134). These figurines 
should be interpreted as referring to a god- 
dess worshipped by families on account of 
her care for pregnant women and young 
mothers (WINTER 1983:127-134; KEEL & 
UENLINGER 1992:110-122; pace TADMOR 
1982). It should be noted that in Iron Age 
II, the monarchic period in Israel, these 
figurines are almost absent, but that in the 
8th century BCE comparable artefacts, the 
so-called pillar-figurines occur quite fre- 
quently. 

III. In the ‘blessing of --Jacob’ four pairs 
of divine epithets are present: (1) ‘Bull of 
Jacob’—~— ‘Shepherd’; (2) -*'El'—-*'Shad- 
day’; (3) -**Heaven above’—‘Deep crouch- 
ing below’ and (4) ‘Breasts and Womb'— 
‘Your Father’ (VAWTER 1955:16-17). "Your 
~Father’, an epithet for El, stands in con- 
junction -with an epithet for a female deity 
identified by SwrrH (1990:18) as. Asherah, 
the consort of El. Gen 49:25 would original- 
ly reflect an early non-monotheistic phase in 
the history of Israclite religion. In its present 
context, the phrase uses mythological termi- 
nology to refer to. -Yahweh's power of 
benediction in the realm of birth and nutri- 
tion. The deity ultimately lurking behind the 
imagery of Gen 49:25 might be identical 
with the caring and suckling goddess known 
from Ugaritic texts and Israelite icono- 
graphy. 

A late relic of this imagery is present in 
Luke 11:27. After Jesus drove out an un- 
clean spirit, a woman in the crowd raised 
her voice and said to him and about him: 
"Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the 
breasts that you sucked!" thereby identifying 
Mary with the type of goddess discussed 
above (J. A. FitzMYER, The Gospel accord- 
ing to Luke (X-XXIV) [AB 28A; Garden City 
1985] 927-928). 

IV. Bibliography 
O. Keer & C. UEHLINGER, Górtinnen, Gót- 
ter und Gottessymbole (Freiburg/Basel/Wien 
1992) 110-122,378-381; M. C. A. KonPEL, 
A Rift in the Clouds (UBL 8; Münster 1990) 
123-125; M. SwurrH, The Early History of 
God (San Fransisco 1990) 16-19; M. 
TaApMoR, Female Cult Figurines in Late 


Canaan and Early Isracl, Studies in the 
Period of David and Solomon and Other 
Essays (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake 1982) 
139-173; B. VAwTER, The Canaanite backg- 
round of Genesis 49, CBQ 17 (1955) 12-17; 
M. WEiPPERT, Dic Bildsprache der neuassy- 
rischen Prophetie, Beiträge zur prophe- 
tischen Bildsprache in Israel und Assyrien 
(ed. H. Weippert, K. Seybold & M. Weip- 
pert; OBO 64; Freiburg/Göttingen 1985) 55- 
93; U. WINTER, Frau und Göttin (OBO 53; 
Freiburg/Göttingen 1983). 


B. BECKING 


BROTHER MN 

I. Heb 'àh, 'brother', represents a 
primitive Semitic noun, of unknown etymol- 
ogy. The term refers to a biological brother 
or half-brother, a male member of compar- 
able standing in a kinship group, or a male 
member of a larger community, such as 
Israel. In the ancient Near East, ‘brother’ 
also occurs as a theophoric element in per- 
sonal names (FOWLER 1988:46-48, 280-281, 
301-302). 

IJ. Although the terms -*'father' and 
-"'mother' are common divine epithets in 
the biblical world with reference to the 
human community, the term ‘brother’ is not 
so used in literary or religious texts (AKKGE) 
nor, apparently, in private letters. With the 
semi-divine Sumerian kings of the Ur-Ill 
dynasty, there are exceptions. In addition to 
the special case of the deified Gilgamesh, a 
putative king of Uruk, cited by kings as 'his 
beloved brother', or as 'his/my brother (and) 
friend’, Shulgi also cites the ‘hero, Utu’, the 
sun god, as ‘my brother (and) friend’, a rela- 
tionship not established in the divine geneal- 
ogies (A. FALKENSTEIN, ZA 50 [1952] 73- 
77; KLEIN 1981:82, 112, 198). In Sumerian 
personal names ‘brother’ is well-attested as 
a divine epithet (for the personal god), much 
more so than in Akkadian names (Di Vrro 
1993:89-93, 254-256, 264-265). In ancient 
Semitic personal names the epithet 
"brother'—rarely 'sister'—may at times re- 
fer to a deity (ZoBEL 1932:35-42; STAMM 
1939:53-57, 209, 222, 241; AHW 18b), as is 
especially clear in Akkadian names such as 


178 


BROTHER 


Sin-ahi-wédi, ‘Sin is a Brother for the Only 
Child’ (Stamm 1939:241; ~Sin). The names 
reflect the important role that brothers play 
within a patriarchal family system, especial- 
ly—in the absence of the father—for sisters 
and younger brothers. For example, if the 
father is no longer living, brothers may have 
an important role in a sister’s marriage. In 
the Laws of Hammurabi, under certain cir- 
cumstances the brothers must present an 
unmarried sister with a dowry (§ 184, ANET 
174), and in the Middle Assyrian laws the 
potential marriage assignment (by a creditor) 
of a debtor’s daughter (in debt service) pre- 
supposes that her father consents or, if the 
father is no longer living, that her brothers 
decline the right of redemption (A§ 48, 
ANET 184). The special role of elder brot- 
hers and elder sisters is also illustrated in the 
Shurpu incantations which mention oaths 
“by the protecting deity of elder brother and 
elder sister" (Surpu II 89), and oaths (of cur- 
sing) or other negative action toward an 
elder brother or elder sister (Surpu IV 58; 
VIII 59; cf. 11 35-36; V-VI 46-47), in con- 
texts with reference to persons or powers of 
higher status. Striking also is the reference 
in the 9th cent. BcE Northwest Semitic 
inscription of Kilamuwa, from northwest 
Syria, in which the king says, concerning 
some subjects: "As for me, to some I was a 
father, and to some I was a mother, and to 
some I was a brother. ... They responded (to 
me) as the fatherless toward (its) mother" 
(KAI 24:10-11, 13). These important family 
relationships provide a basis for the expres- 
sion of family or popular piety in personal 
names, unlike the conventions of ‘official’ 
religion (Di Vrro 1993:92-93). 

III. In Hebrew theophoric personal names 
known from the Bible and from inscriptions 
(ZADOK 1988:178-187), the most common 
elements, apart from ël, ‘god’ (>El, 
~God), and variations of y/wh (-*Yahweh), 
are ’ab, ‘father’ (more than 30), ’ah, ‘brother’ 
(more than 25), and ‘amm-, ‘paternal uncle/ 
kinsman’ (more than 12). Note names such 
as Ahijah, ‘Yah(u) is My (divine) Brother’ 
(8 men, one woman?; Stamm 1980:111), 
Ahinadab ‘My (divine) Brother is Generous’ 
(one man), and Ahisamach, ‘My (divine) 


Brother Has Helped’ (one man), as well as 
Ahinoam, ‘My (divine?) Brother is Gra- 
cious’ (one man [Samaria ostraca], two 
women; STAMM 1980:113). Probable substi- 
tution names, such as Ahitub, ‘My Brother 
is Goodness’ (two men), also occur (STAMM 
1939:279, 295; 1980:67, 69). In societies 
that rely heavily on the extended patriarchal 
family, as illustrated especially by the Books 
of Genesis and Ruth in the case of Israel, a 
brother or an uncle is commonly a primary 
authority figure, one whose protection is 
essential. (Though the precise relationship 
between Ruth and Boaz is not indicated, he 
is a male relative second in line; Ruth 4:3- 
6.) With reference to brothers, note the role 
of —Laban in the marriage of his sister, 
Rebecca (Gen 24:50-51), the role of Absa- 
lom in defence of his sister, Tamar (2 Sam 
13), and the role of a brother, uncle (dód. 
-*Dod). or uncle's son (ben dód) in redemp- 
tion from debt slavery (Lev 25:48-49). As 
such the epithet ‘brother’ can be used of a 
deity. even if only in the popular or family 
piety reflected in personal names (ALBERTZ 
1978). 
IV. Bibliography 

R. ALBERTZ, Persönliche Frömmigkeit und 
offizielle Religion (Stuttgart 1978); R. A. Di 
Vito, Studies in Third Millennium Sumerian 
and Akkadian Personal Names. The Desig- 
nation and Conception of the Personal God 
(StPsm 16; Rome 1993); J. D. FOWLER, 
Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient 
Hebrew: A Comparative Study (JSOTSup 
49; Sheffield 1988); J. KLEIN, Three Sulgi 
Hymns (Ramat-Gan 1981); H. RINGGREN, 
MS ?ach, MTS *Achéth, TDOT | (1977) 188- 
193; J. J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namen- 
gebung (MVAAG 44; Leipzig 1939); 
STAMM, Beitrüge zur hebrüischen wnd alt- 
orientalischen Namenkunde (OBO 30: Frei- 
burg 1980); R. ZADOK, The Pre-hellenistic 
Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography 
(Louvain 1988); J. ZosrL, Das bildliche 
Gebrauch der | Verwandtschaftsnamen im 
Hebräischen mit Berücksichtigung der 
übrigen semitischen Sprachen (Halle 1932). 


H. B. HUFFMON 


179 


CAIN jp 

I. in Gen 4:1 the name of the first son 
of Adam and Eve, Cain, is related in a 
popular etymology to the Hebrew verb QNH 
‘to acquire’. More probably the name should 
be related to either the Ugaritic gn ‘reed; 
shaft’ and Heb qayin ‘javelin’ or to Syrian 
and Semitic words for ‘smith’; e.g. Syr 
qajnàjà '(gold)smith'; Thamudic gjn; gn and 
qnt, ‘smith’ (HALAT 1025; Hess 1993). His 
name might be related to a Thamudic deity 
qayn. Besides, the story on Cain and -*Abel 
has been interpreted mythologically, Cain 
representing the deified sun (GOLDZIHER 
1876:129-139). 

H. In Thamudic inscriptions the personal 
name ‘abd-qayn is attested once (VAN DEN 
BRANDEN 1950:10). Qayn has been inter- 
preted by Van den Branden as a Sabaean 
lunar deity. HOFNER (WbMyth 1/1, 461-462; 
RAAM, 277) doubted the divine status of 
Qayn in view of the well attested Thamudic 
personal name Qayn and the noun qayn 
‘smith’. The construction ‘abd-NN leaves 
open the possibility that Qayn was a 
Thamudic deity or a deified ancestor, how- 
ever. In view of the etymology of the name, 
Qayn may well have been a patron deity for 
the metal-workers. A_ relation with the 
South-Arabian deity Qaynàn (-*Kenan) is 
uncertain. 

HI. A tale about the rivalry of two 
brothers at the dawn of civilization has more 
than one religio-historical parallel: —Osiris 
and —>Seth, Romulus and Remus, Eteokles 
and Polyneikes are just the more familiar 
ones (WESTERMANN 1974:428-430). In such 
stories the ‘two brothers’ can be seen as 
heroic figures. GOLDZIHER (1876:129-139) 
goes one step further in interpreting these 
tales as survivals of myths in which the 
ancestors of a culture are presented as divine 
beings. Cain is supposed to represent, orig- 


inally, the solar deity in combat with the 
transient powers of darkness: Abel. In the 
current version of Gen 4 no traces of such a 
mythology are visible, however. 

In the OT Cain occurs only in the story 
of Gen 4 where he is the cultural and moral 
opposite of Abel. Cain represents the realm 
of settled agricultural life. In the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, Cain is mentioned as the 
opposite of his brother Abel (Heb 11:4): 
“By faith Abel offered unto God a more 
excellent sacrifice than Cain”. The author of 
this letter refers to the unanswerable ques- 
tion why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected and 
Abel’s accepted. This problem is discussed 
in some Hellenistic Jewish and Rabbinic 
sources too (-*Abel). In the Letter of Jude, 
Cain is presented as the model for the evil- 
doers from Sodom and Gomorrah who 
“went in the way of Cain” (Jude 11). 

IV. Bibliography 
A. VAN DEN BRANDEN, Les Inscriptions 
Thamoudéennes (Louvain 1950): I. Gorp- 
ZIHER, Der Mythus bei den Hebrüern und 
seine geschichtliche Entwicklung (Leipzig 
1876); R. S. Hess, Studies in the Personal 
Names of Genesis 1-1] (AQAT 234; Neu- 
kirchen-Vluyn 1993) 24-27,37-39; M. Hór- 
NER, WbMyth 1/1, 461-462; C. WESTER- 
MANN, Genesis 1-1] (BKAT I/I; 
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974). 


B. BECKING 


CALF 230 

I. Hebrew ‘égel, Ugaritic ‘el, Aramaic 
‘igla’, the common word for ‘calf’ (sc. a 
young bull), is used of images worshipped 
by the Israelites in texts written from the 
deuteronomistic perspective. 

Il. The bull as a symbol of physical 
strength and sexual potency, together with 
all the economic benefits arising from herd- 


180 


CALF 


ing, has an ancient pedigree in the religions 
of the Ancient Near East. From at least the 
time of Neolithic Çatal Hüyük in Anatolia, 
images have been prominent in glyptic art, 
sculpture and reliefs, and the animal has 
been prominent in iconography and theol- 
ogy. The use of cattle as sacrificial animals 
is common throughout the region. Bull-gods 
are widely evident. In Egypt the Mnevis bull 
of Heliopolis was regarded as a therio- 
morphic incarnation of —Re, while the 
Buchis bull of Hermonthis was one of Mont, 
and the —Apis bull of Memphis was one of 
—Ptah, later in the dyadic form ~Osiris- 
Ptah. In Mesopotamia, Gugalanna, the 
‘Great Bull of Heaven’, the husband of 
Ereshkigal, goddess of the underworld, was 
identified or associated with An, and was 
slain by Gilgamesh (tablet VI). The Sedu, 
Lamassu or Karibu colossi were the guard- 
ians of temples (cf. the Cherub in Gen 
3:24). In Ugaritic religion, >El was known 
as "the Bull EI' (tr il) This usage may 
belong in part to the convention of giving 
animal names as terms of rank to military 
personnel, as evidenced in KTU 1.15 iv 6-7: 
"Call my seventy bulls, my eighty gazelles", 
and suggests at least a popular etymological 
link between ir (Hebrew 3ór. Akkadian 
šaru), ‘bul? and Hebrew sar, Akkadian 
Sarru, ‘ruler’, ‘king’. (There is no formal 
link.) Near Eastern weather-gods are con- 
ventionally shown standing on a bull as 
vehicle, while -Baal is described in KTU 
1.5 v 18-22 as copulating with a heifer, 
which suggests that he too could be re- 
garded as a bull. Cult-images of bulls have 
been recovered from such sites as Ugarit, 
Tyre and Hazor. 

III. A number of terms for cattle are used 
in the Bible as epithets of divine power. The 
title Sér él (‘Bull El’) has been discerned 
(Tur-Sinai_ 1950) in the impossible *ki 
miyyisrá'el (‘for from Israel’) of MT in Hos 
8:6: read rather ki mi Sdér ’él (‘for who is 
Bull EI?), which fits well in the context. 
With this may be compared —Jacob's title 
in Deut 33:17 as békór $ór (MT sóró), "the 
first-born of the Bull’. In Gen 49:24; Ps 
132:2, 5; Isa 49:26; 60:16 ’dbir ya‘aqob 


probably has the sense of ‘Bull of Jacob’ 
(cf. Ugaritic ibr), while the divine title ’abir 
yisra’él of Isa 1:24 is comparable. The term 
r@’ém (Akkadian rému) is generally thought 
to denote the aurochs (its semantic range is 
established by Deut 33:17 // šôr, and Ps 
29:6 // *egel), and appears as an epithet of 
El (sc. --Yahweh, though perhaps originally 
independent) in Num 23:22 = 24:8. This is 
important evidence for the tradition that El 
as a bull-god was the deliverer in the exodus 
tradition (sce below). 

The episodes of the Golden Calf and the 
Calves of Jeroboam, respectively in Exod 32 
and | Kgs 12:26-33, appear to be un- 
connected. But their literary relationship is 
close, as established by ABERBACH & 
SMOLAR (1967). It may be argued that, his- 
torically speaking, the event under Jeroboam 
is the historical source of the Golden Calf 
episode as a midrash on the theme of apos- 
tasy and its punishment by exile. It is 
scarcely credible that a historical episode as 
described in Exod 32 actually predated the 
settlement in Palestine, as it presupposes a 
monotheism which could hardly predate 
Josiah at the carliest. A comparison of the 
wording of 1 Kgs 12:28, Exod 32:4.8 and of 
Neh 9:18 (Wvarr 1992:78-79) allows us to 
conclude that the formula in 1 Kgs 12:28 is 
primary, and that the others have both de- 
veloped from it, and transformed a soteriol- 
ogical statement (as surely intended by Jero- 
boam) into a declaration of apostasy. 
Contrary to the evident meaning of Exod 
32:4, 8, which apparently attempts to con- 
struct two or more gods out of one calf(!), it 
is clear from the narrative in Kgs that one 
god was understood by the 'calf' image, and 
that Jeroboam's ‘calves’ were different im- 
ages of the same god. 

As to the identity of the god, suggestions 
have ranged from Yahweh (PATON 1894, 
OBBnINK 1929 et al.), through Baal (OstnorN 
1955. Dus 1968), ‘polytheism’ (MonrT- 
GOMERY, Kings [ICC; Edinburgh 1951] 
255) -—Hathor (OEsrERLv, 77e legacy of 
Egypt [1942!] 239) -^Moses (SASSON 
1968), and Sin (LEwv 1945-1946) to El 
(SCHAEFFER 1966, Wyatt 1992). 


181 


CARMEL 


The present writer has proposed (WvATT 
1992:79) that the MT at Exod 32:4.8 has 
preserved an older strand of tradition, still 
formally dependant on Jeroboam's formula, 
but preserving the old notion (which was 
presumably the intention. of Jeroboam's 
words) that one deity was to be identified by 
the formula, which read originally "'eé/ 
'élóhekà — yisra?'él "á$er  he'elkà | mé'ereg 
migrayim, expressing the kerygma "El is 
your god, Israel, who brought you up out of 
the land of Egypt!" This has been deliber- 
ately perverted in transmission into "These 
are your gods..." by the simple expedient of 
adding matres lectionis which require a 
plural interpretation. of the demonstrative, 
'élóhéká, and the verb. The old consonantal 
text is capable of singular or plural interpre- 
tation. 

A kerygma of El as the saviour from 
Egypt has left traces elsewhere, notably at 
Num 23:22; 24:8 noted above, Ps 106:19- 
22. Hos 7:16, where /a'gàm (sic), ‘their 
derision’, is either to be corrected to ‘aglam, 
‘their calf’, or more probably recognised as 
a vicious lampoon on a reference which is 
already a parody, by ridiculing the bull-god 
as a mere calf. This is congruent with the 
attack on bull-worship in Hos 8:1-6. The use 
of 'el/Pélóhé 'ábi in Exod 15:2 may also be 
significant in view of the Vorlage of the 
latter formula (Wvarr, ZAW 90 [1978] 101- 
104). This has important implications for the 
exegesis of Exod 3 (Wyatt, ZAW 91 [1979] 
437-442). 

IV. Bibliography 
M. ABERBACH & L. SMOLAR, Aaron, Jero- 
boam and the Golden Calves, JBL 86 (1967) 
129-140; L. R. BaiLey, The Golden Calf, 
HUCA 42 (1971) 97-115; M. Bic, Bevel - le 
sanctuaire du roi, ArOr 17 (1949) 49-63; H. 
C. BRicHTO, The Worship of the Golden 
Calf: a literary analysis of a fable on idol- 
atry, HUCA 54 (1983) 1-44; E. DANIELUS, 
The sins of Jeroboam ben-Nebat, JOR 58 
(1967) 95-114, 204-233; J. Derus, Die 
Sünde Jeroboams (FRLANT 93; Göttingen 
1967); H. DONNER, ‘Hier sind deine Gótter, 
Israel", Wort und Geschichte (ed. H. Gese 
& H. P. Riiger, AOAT 18; Neukirchen- 


Viuyn 1973) 45-50; T. B. DOZEMAN, 
Moses: Divine Servant and Israelite Hero, 
HAR 8 (1984) 45-61; J. Dus, Die Stierbilder 
von Bethel und Dan und das Problem der 
*Moseschar’, AJON 18 (1968) 105-137: O. 
EISSFELDT, Lade und Stierbild. ZAW 58 
(1940-1) 190-215; J. Lewy, The Late 
Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and Its 
Culmination in the Time of Nabonidus, 
HUCA 19 (1945-46) 405-489; H. MOTZKI, 
Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Stierkultes in 
der Religionsgeschichte Israels, VT 25 
(1975) 470-485; W. OBBiNKk, Jahwebilder, 
ZAW 47 (1929) 264-274; G. ÓsBonRN, 
Yahweh and Baal, LUÁ 51.6 (1955); L. B. 
PATON, Did Amos Approve the Calf-Wor- 
ship at Bethel?, JBL 13 (1894) 80-90; J. M. 
Sasson, The Bovine Symbolism in Exodus, 
VT 18 (1968) 380-387; J. M. Sasson, The 
Worship of the Golden Calf, Orient and 
Occident (ed. H. A. Hoffner. AOAT 22; 
Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971) 151-159; C-F. A. 
SCHAEFFER, Nouveaux témoignages du culte 
de El et de Baal à Ras Shamra ct ailleurs en 
Syrie-Palestine, Syria 43 (1966) 16; H. Tun- 
Sınai, VES Ws, EncMigr 1 (Jerusalem 
1950) cols. 31-33; R. pe Vaux, Le schisme 
religieux de Jeroboam, Angelicum 20 (1943) 
77-91; J. VERMEYLEN, L'affaire du veau 
d'or (Ex. 32-34), ZAW 97 (1985) 1-23; M. 
WEIPPERT, Gott und Stier, ZDPV 77 (1961) 
93-117; N. Wyatr, Of Calves and Kings: 
the Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of 
Isracl, SJOT 6 (1992) 68-91. 


N. WYATT 


CARMEL “mm 

I. Carmel (Jebel Kurmul) is a promon- 
tory on the Mediterranean Coast of Isracl 
near Haifa which since ancient times was 
considered as ‘holy’. A deity was wor- 
shipped there whose name occurs outside 
the Bible as “god of the Carmel”. In the OT 
Mount Carmel is known especially as scene 
of a trial of strength between the prophets of 
—Baal and -*Elijah, or rather, between Baal 
and > Yahweh (1 Kgs 18). 

H. The ‘holiness’ of the Carmel may 
already have been mentioned in the listing 


182 


CARMEL 


of countries and cities of the conquering 
Pharaoh Thutmoses III in the second millen- 
nium (about 1490-1436 BCE) by the name 
'Rash-Qadesh' (*Holy Head', ANET 243), 
although this identification is still uncertain. 
According to the Annals of Shalmaneser III, 
Mount Carmel appears as "the mountain of 
Ba‘li-ra’5i", where the Assyrian king re- 
ceived tribute from Jehu of Israel (AsToUR 
1962). Based on this evidence Astour is of 
the opinion that this “testifies to the sacral 
character of Mount Carmel”. In the fifth or 
fourth century BCE Pseudo-Scylax described 
Mount Carmel as “the holy mountain of 
—Zeus” (Gpog tepov Aros; Periplus 104). 
Tacitus (Hist. I1, 78) mentions the deity and 
the mountain Carmelus on account of the 
favourable promises to Vespasian in 69 CE: 
“Between ludea and Syria lies the Carmel. 
Thus they called the mountain and the 
divinity. The god has no image or temple— 
according to the ancestral tradition—, but 
only an altar and a cult”. Also Suetonius 
records about the same Vespasian (De vita 
Vesp VIIL6): "When he (i.e. Vespasian) was 
consulting the oracle of the god of Carmel 
in ludaea, the lots were very encouraging. 
promising that whatever he planned or 
wished, however great it might be, would 
come to pass ...". In 1952 Avi-YONAH 
published a late second- or early third-cen- 
tury CE inscription on a big marble votive 
foot, found in the monastery of Elijah (on 
the north-west side of mount Carmel). with 
a dedication to the "Heliopolitan Zeus of the 
Carmel": All HAIOIIOAEITH KAPMHAQ. 
The statements of Tacitus and Suetonius, 
and also of this inscription, that Carmel(us) 
can be the name of the god may have been 
derived from the translation of the North- 
west-Semitic 2372. 222. lamblichus informs 
us at the beginning of the fourth century CE 
about the sojourn of a meditating Pythagoras 
on Mount Carmel (De vita Pythagorica III, 
15) after he was brought by Egyptian sailors 
to this mountain to be alone in this holy 
place. In this connection he spoke about 
“the highest peak of the Carmel, which 
they considered as the holiest and for 
many people not to be trodden mountain”. 


Iamblichus does not mention a deity, he 
speaks only about "a holy place". It is 
possible that this is the same place which 
Orosius calls an "oracle" (Historia adv. 
paganos VII. 9). 

From these extra-biblical data one can 
infer (1) that the mountain was considered 
*holy' since ancient times; ( 2) that there has 
probably never been a temple on Mount 
Carmel; (3) that the deity of the Carmel had 
a more than local meaning; and (4) that, 
especially in later times, there was a connec- 
tion between Zeus Heliopolitanus and the 
deity of the Carmel. 

The Heliopolis here mentioned is a town 
in Libanon/Syna in the Beqa' near the 
source of the Orontes, now called Baalbek. 
Its Greek name since the Seleucid period 
was "city of the sun" (Helio-polis), possibly 
because Baal was identified with ‘the god of 
the sun’. The most ancient temple of 
Baalbek was originally dedicated to the 
Semitic stormgod -*Hadad, and since Hel- 
lenistic times to Jupiter/Zeus. The sky-god 
-*Baalshamem also merged with Jupiter. By 
the beginning of the Christian Era, the cult 
of the god of Heliopolis had even found its 
way as far as the Italian coast. A Latin 
inscription has been found in Puteoli (near 
Naples) which mentions cultores Jovis 
Heliopolitani (worshippers of the Helio- 
politan Jupiter). In the time of Emperor 
Septimius Severus, Baalbek became an inde- 
pendent colony with an Italian legal system 
and games in honour of Heliopolitanus. 
Mount Carmel belonged to Acco/Ptolemais, 
where coins were found representing Jupiter 
Heliopolitanus flanked by bulls. A coin was 
also found with a picture of a -giant's foot. 
Above this picture can be seen the lightning 
of Zeus, beside it the caduceus (i.e. herald's 
staff), and under it an axe. The similarity of 
the picture on this coin with the marble vo- 
tive foot, mentioned above, is most striking. 

The great deity of Heliopolis/Baalbek 
could only be compared with the centuries 
older ‘god of the Carmel’, if one could find 
in this god something of the nature of Zeus. 
Zeus Heliopolitanus is perhaps a fusion of a 
Semitic weather, sky and fertility-god like 


183 


CARMEL 


Hadad or Baalshamem, and the sun-god 
—Helios (EtsSFELDT 1953; Day 1992). He 
is a comparatively young member in a long 
list of Semitic gods of this type. 

But who was the (Canaanite) god whose 
‘contest’ with Yahweh on Mount Carmel in 
the time of Ahab is told in 1 Kgs 18? In the 
course of time many different answers have 
been given to this question. There are 
scholars who sce in this Baal a local numen, 
others are of the opinion that he was the 
Baal par excellence or Baalshamem, the 
sky-god. Most scholars, however, see in this 
deity the Tyrian Baal who was identified 
with Melqart (Greek —Heracles). A com- 
parison of some data in | Kgs 18 with data 
known from the worship of the Tyrian 
Melqart seems to support this conjecture. 
Yet no consensus has been reached. ALT 
asserted that Yahweh on Mount Carmel did 
not have a contest with a Tyrian god, but 
with the old deity of mount Carmel itself. 
EISSFELDT was of the opinion that the Baal 
of mount Carmel was the same as the uni- 
versal Baalshamem. DussAuD took the 
name of this Baal to be Hadad. Indeed, there 
is no need whatsoever to replace the name 
*Melqart' for the Baal of this tale. Besides, 
it must be said that ‘Melqart’ is not a proper 
name but rather a ttle (BRONNER 1968; 
BONNET 1986); moreover, the Tyrian god 
was equated with Heracles rather than with 
Zeus. 

One's view regarding the historicity of 
the tales of 1 Kgs 18 is essential for the 
solution of the problem of the ‘real name’ of 
the deity. Those who regard the stories on 
Mount Carmel as historically true are in- 
clined to see in Baal the ‘Tyrian Melqart 
(thus e.g. DE VAUX 1941); those who regard 
these stories as novellas of a later time, 
which function as haggadoth, are inclined to 
see in the Baal of Mount Carmel only an 
indication of the old Baal par excellence 
(thus e.g. MULDER 1979), It is very difficult 
to demonstrate that | Kgs 18:26-29, an old 
reproduction of a—local?—Baal cult, could 
only fit a Tyrian sacrificial ceremony. Many 
details could have been found in other Baal 
ceremonies too, judging by what we know 


about the Ugaritic religion. Moreover, it is 
not until a second century BCE inscription 
from Malta that we find Melqart referred to 
as “Baal of Tyre” (KA/ 47:1; Day 1992: 
548). One should always realize that the 
author of 1 Kgs 18, just like the other 
authors of the OT, did not intend to give 
some valuable information about a god who 
in his eyes was merely an idol (interpretatio 
israelitica). The identity, character and role 
of the deity of Mount Carmel—as described 
in 1 Kings 18—are those of a fertility and 
vegetation god. This fits precisely with the 
image of Baal obtained from the Ugaritic 
and other extra-biblical texts. 

III. The nature of the biblical Baal of the 
Carmel and his worship emerges in 1 Kgs 
18:26-28, where it is told that the ‘prophets’ 
of Baal offered a bull and invoked Baal by 
name, crying: “Baal, answer us”. Meanwhile 
the prophets danced wildly beside the altar 
they had set up. After Elijah mocked them 
with the words: “Call louder for he is a 
-god, perhaps he is deep in thought. or 
otherwise engaged, or on a journey, or has 
gone to sleep and must be woken up”, they 
cried louder still and gashed themselves, as 
was their custom, with swords and spears 
until blood ran. 

This characterization of Baal is not pecu- 
liar to Melqart. In the Ugaritic texts we find 
a cult-cry: "Where is mightiest Baal, where 
is the prince lord of earth" (KTU 1.6 iv:4-5.; 
CML 78). The ecstacy of these prophets is 
reminiscent of the prophetic ecstasy reported 
in the tale of Wen-Amon (ANET 25-29); 
there are other extra-biblical parallels, too 
(GASTER 1969:504-510). Of the self-mutila- 
tion of the ecstatic Baal-worshippers, “as 
was their custom”, we also have parallels in 
the Uganitic texts: “he harrowed his collar- 
bone, he ploughed his chest like a garden, 
he harrowed his waist like a valley” (KTU 
1.5 vi:20-22; CML 73). The somewhat enig- 
matic words of the mocking Elijah: “he is 
deep in thought, or he is otherwise en- 
gaged”, do not reveal anything specific 
about Baal. The absence, the journey, the 
sleeping and awakening of Baal are all in 
line with the idea of Baal as god of vegeta- 


184 


CASTOR — 


tion and fertility. This god is precisely the 
god who in later times was called “the god 
of the Carmel” or “the god Carmel”. 

It should be noted that it is told that 
Elijah “repaired the altar of Yahweh which 
had been torn down" (18:30). This confirms 
the older statement that there was already an 
altar on Mount Carme! before the time of 
the ‘contest’ of the gods, but not a temple. 
From 2 Kgs 2:25 and 4:23-25, we may infer 
that Mount Carmel was a place of pilgrim- 
age for Israclite and Canaanite people, and a 
spiritual retreat for Elisha and other charis- 
matic prophets too (THOMPSON 1992). The 
special circumstances for these festivals 
were new moon festivals and sabbaths. The 
authors of the biblical stories nevertheless 
deny any form of identification of Yahweh 
and "the god of the Carmel". 

IV. Bibliography 
A. ALT, Das Gottesurteil auf dem Karmel, 
FS. G. Beer (1935) 1-18 = KS 2, 135-149; 
M. C. Astour, Carmel, Mount, /BDS 
(1962) 141; M. Avi-Yonan, Mount Carmel 
and the God of Baalbek, /EJ 2 (1952) 118- 
124; C. Bonnet, Le culte de Melqart a 
Carthage. Un cas de conservatisme reli- 
gicux, Studia Phoenicia IV (C. Bonnet, E. 
Lipiński & P. Marchetti eds.; Namur 1986); 
L. BRONNER, The stories of Elijah and 
Elisha (Leiden 1968); J. Day, Baal, ABD 1 
(1992) 545-549; R. DussAUD, Les décou- 
vertes de Ras Shamra et l'Ancient Testament 
(Paris 19412); O. EissrELDT, Der Gott 
Karmel (SDAW 1: 1953); K. GALLING, Der 
Gott Karmel und die Ächtung der fremden 
Götter, Geschichte und Altes Testament, FS 
A. Alt (1953) 105-125; T. H. GASTER, Myth, 
Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament 
(New York/Evanston 1969) 504-511; M. J. 
MULDER, Baal in het Oude Testament (The 
Hague 1962) 30-44; MULDER, De naam van 
de afwezige god op de Karmel. Onderzoek 
naar de naam van de Baäl van de Karmel in 
I Koningen 18 (Leiden 1979); MULDER, 
WD, TWAT 4 (1984) 340-351; H. D. 
PREUSS, Verspottung fremder Religionen im 
Alten Testament (StuttgarUBerlin 1971) 80- 
100: H. O. TuoMPSON, Carmel, Mount, 
ABD | (1992) 874-875; S. Timm, Die 


CHAOS 


Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen 
zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert 
vor Christus (FRLANT 124; Göttingen 
1982) 87-101: R. pe Vaux, Les prophètes 
de Baal sur le Mont Carmel, Bulletin du 
Musée de Beyrouth 5 (1941) 7-20 = Bible et 
Orient (Paris 1967) 485-497; E. WÜRTH- 
wEIN, Die Erzählung vom Gottesurteil auf 
dem Karmel, ZTK 59 (1962) 131-144. 


M. J. MULDER 


CASTOR -* DIOSKOUROI 


CHAOS Xáog 

I. The Greek word ydosg (related to 
yaoKw or yaivw, ‘gape, yawn’) literally 
means ‘chasm’ or ‘yawning space’. There 
were various conceptions of it in Greco- 
Roman antiquity, because in various mythi- 
cal cosmogonies Chaos played very differ- 
ent roles. The word occurs only twice in the 
Greek Bible, in Mic 1:6 and Zech 14:4, each 
time as a translation of the Hebrew gy’, ‘val- 
ley’; and 2 times in the Greek fragments of 
I Enoch (10:13) and Jubilees (2:2), where it 
seems to be used for the abyss where the 
evil angels have been incarcerated forever. 
The modern sense of the word, i.c. 'dis- 
order’, developed only slowly and is not 
attested before the later Imperial Period. 

II. Hesiod was the first to assign Chaos 
a position at the head of a cosmological 
genealogy. In Theog. 116-122 Chaos is 
either the personified murky and gloomy 
space below the -earth (thus West 1966: 
192-3) or the vast gap between earth and 
—sky (thus Kirk, RAVEN & SCHOFIELD 
1983:34-41); its children are Erebos (the 
realm of darkness associated with —Hades) 
and Nyx (^ Night); cf. for this primary posi- 
tion also Acusilaos ap. Philodemus, De 
pietate 137,5 and Aristophanes, Aves 693. In 
various post-Hesiodic cosmogonical sys- 
tems, Chaos receives different positions: c.g. 
in Orphic accounts it comes second, after 
Chronos (FAUTH 1975:1129; Kirk, RAVEN 
& SCHOFIELD 1983:26-28; further details in 
SCHWABL 1962:1467-84). In later authors 
Chaos develops the various notions of pri- 


185 


CHEMOSH 


mordial matter (e.g. Ovid. Mer. I 5-20), 
primordial water (e.g. Pherecydes 7Bla; 
Zeno, SVF I 103 [etymological derivation 
and tov xée08a1]}), primordial time (e.g. 
PGM IV 2535f.), the air between heaven 
and carth (e.g. Aristophanes, Aves 1218; 
Bacchylides 5,27), and the (whole or part of 
the) netherworld (e.g. Ps-Plato, Axiochus 
371e: CuwoNT 1942:5|] and TERNUS 1954: 
1032-1034 for further references). In various 
Gnostic systems Chaos plays a negative role 
in connection with the bad Demiurge 
(Hippolytus, Refutatio V 10.2; 14,1) or as 
the place of ‘outer darkness’, the ‘abyss’ 
(NHC 1 5, 89; II 1, 30) or as designation of 
the cosmos (BG 8502, 118-121; see further 
The Nag Hammadi Library in’English [San 
Francisco-Leiden 1977} 480 s.v.; SIEGERT 
1982:323). 

III. Chaos as a cosmogonic factor or 
principle does not occur in the Bible, al- 
though the statement in Gen 1:2 that the 
earth was tohu wabohu (LXX: adpatog Kai 
axatacKevactos) and that darkness covered 
the deep (-*tiamat, LXX àftvoooc) shows 
some resemblance to the Hesiodic concept. 
In this connection it is interesting that Philo 
of Byblos, in his rendering of Sanchunia- 
thon’s Phoenician cosmogonical lore, says 
that “he posits as the apyq of the universe a 
dark and windy air, or a stream of dark air, 
and turbid (or watery), gloomy chaos (xáog 
Borepov peses)”, ap. Eusebius, Praep. 
Evang. I 10,1. However much this formula- 
tion may be due to an interpretatio graeca, 
it makes clear that the author apparently saw 
a close analogy between these Greek and 
Semitic protologics (BAUMGARTEN 1981: 
106-108 ad loc. rightly refers to Gen 1:2). 
In an apocalyptic context, Chaos sometimes 
functions as an element in the eschatological 
cosmic upheaval (GUNKEL 1895), as may be 
seen e.g. in 4 Ezra 5:8, where it is said that 
in the endtime in many places an abyss or 
chasm (the Latin here retains the Greck 
word chaos) will open up from which sub- 
terrestrial fire will break out. This may 
explain why the LXX translators twice 
chose the word xaos to render passages with 
an eschatological tone: in Mic 1:6 the Lorp 


will destroy Samaria and hurl her stones into 
the chaos, and in Zech 14:4 the feet of the 
LonD will stand on the Mount of Olives and 
the mount will be cleft in two by an im- 
mense chaos stretching from east to west. 
The eschatological chaos as a place of cter- 
nal torment in / Enach 10:13 (see above) is 
paralleled in 2 Pet 2:4, where it is said that 
-»God did not spare the angels who sinned, 
but consigned them to the dark pits of 
Tartarus. 
IV. Bibliography 

A. Il. BAUMGARTEN, The Phoenician History 
of Philo of Byblos (Leiden 1981); L. A. 
Corpo, XAOZ. Zur Ursprungsvorstellung 
bei den Griechen (Idstein 1989); F. 
CuMONT, Recherches sur le symbolisme 
funéraire des Romains (New York 1975 = 
Paris 1942); O. EissrELDT, Das Chaos in 
der biblischen und in der phónizischen 
Kosmogonie, KS II (Tübingen 1963) 258- 
262; W. FAurH, Chaos, KP I (1975) 1129- 
30; H. GUNKEL, Schépfung und Chaos in 
Urzeit und Endzeit (Göttingen 1895); *G. S. 
Kirk, J. E. RAVEN & M. SCHOFIELD, The 
Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge 
19832), index s.v; H. ScuwanL, Welt- 
schópfung, PWSup 9 (1962) 1433-1582; F. 
SigcERT, Nag-Hammadi-Register (Tübingen 
1982); *J. TERNUS, Chaos. RAC 2 (1954) 
1031-40; M. L. West, Hesiod. Theogony 
(Oxford 1966). 


P. W. VAN DER Horst 


CHEMOSH C22 

I. The divine name Chemosh has the 
phonological forms *'kam(m)it and 
*kam(m)ut' —the first one being attested in 
Eblaitic 9Ka-mi/mi-ig, in the geographical 
name KarkamiS ‘quay of Kamis’, and in 
FND Jer 48:7 (MULLER 1980), the other 
one in a couple of Semitic languages like 
Neo-Assyrian, Moabite, and perhaps in 
Ugaritic. The duplication of consonants 
would neither be indicated in Eblaitic cunci- 
form script nor in Ugaritic and Moabite. 
Both forms, gattil (parris) as a substantival 
participle of B-stem (GAG § 55:20all) and 
gattul (parrus) as a verbal adjective of D- 


186 


CHEMOSH 





stem, may mean ‘conqueror, subduer’ as 
shown by Akkadian kandsu, kamas/su ‘ 
submit to an overlord, a deity’, D-stem: "to 
bend down, to bow down’ (CAD K 144-148; 
compare Old South-Arabic hkms ‘to hu- 
miliate, crush’), The same is true in respect 
to Hebrew *kamds < ‘kam(m)as*, a qattal- 
formation, as it is very often used for 
nomina agentis; in Ugarit, we find the per- 
sonal name (bin-)ka-ma-si (GRÖNDAHL 
1967), in Moab the royal name ™Ka-ma-a§- 
hal-ta-a, both with ‘a’ in the second syllable 
(WrEwPERT, RLA 5 [1976-1980] 328). 
Masoretic kémds is voweled according to 
b&’6§ ‘stench’ or the like and so deliberately 
misleading, since the correct vocalization is 
attested by yapos of the LXX and Chamos 
of the Vg, where the duplicated middle con- 
sonant is wanting for some reason or other. 
There is no etymological connexion to 
Middle Hebrew kāmaš ‘to wrinkle, wither’ 
nor to the rare Arabic kamasa ‘to be/get 
harsh, sour, acid’. Nevertheless, a non-Semi- 
tic origin of the name cannot be rejected 
absolutely. 

II. The great importance of the god 
Kami$ in the private as well as in the 
official religion of Ebla is to be seen from 
the usc of this theonym as a theophoric el- 
ement in personal names, from the bulk of 
sheep offering presented to him (TM.75. 
G.2075 obv. VII:6; rev. 1V:4; VI:3, 13, 18: 
PETTINATO 1979; 147-159) and not least by 
the fact that the name of the 12th month is 
itu nidba, (MUSxKUR, or MUS.KURg) 

dKa- m -iš ‘month of the festival for Kami’; 

an é dKà-mi-i$ "temple of Kami§’ is equally 
attested. (PETrINATO 1974-1977; 1976, but 
also E. SoLLBERGER. StEb 1V/9-10 [1980] 
136; MOLLER 1980: Pomponio 1983:145, 
156). 

In Ugarit, the veneration of a binomial 
deity zz.w kmt or tz-w kit, though not in a 
prominent place, can be deduced from the 
occurence in KTU 1.100:36; 107:16; 123:5. 
zz or fz means ‘mud, clay’ as a comparison 
with Akkadian fitu and Hebrew (ít, both of 
the same meaning, shows (XELLA 1981:219- 
220) and may account for the chthonic char- 
acter of kint, since the waw in zz.w kmt is 


perhaps to be interpreted as a waw explica- 
tionis in the sense of ‘namely’. As all three 
attestations are in stereotyped contexts, the 
role of z/tz.w kmt is casily exchangeable 
with an equal role played by other binomial 
deities. KTU 1.123 is virtually a god list. 

According to the expression nLnw 
kmt.hryth in. KTU 1.100:36, ane city Aryt(h), 
identifiable as Hu-ur-ri-ya‘i in Northern 
Me ponmi, (ARM VIII. 100:19), or as 
(uu) #4y-ri-ja4 in the kingdom of Alalah (A/T 
201:15; cf. ASTOUR 1968), if not—less 
probably—as Ha-ri-e-ta near Qade& on the 
Orontes (A. CAQUoOr, Syria 46 [1969] 246), 
was the main cult place of zz.w Ant. 

The Nco-Assyrian Chicago syllabary 136 

ives the equations GUD = Ka-mu-us = 
Ka-mu-us GUD (cf. SL 11/2,515 [no. 13e]) 
for which we remember that GUD can be 
the word-sign for -*efemimnu ‘spirit of a dead 
one’, perhaps another hint to the chthonic 
character of Chemosh. For the same reason, 
4Ka-am-mus is identified with Nergal in 
CT 24, 36:66 (AKKGE 339; W. G. LAMBERT, 
RLA 5 [1976-1980] 335). 

As for the Moabite evidence, Chemosh is 
attested both in native inscriptions on the 
one hand and in royal names transmitted in 
cuneiform texts on the other hand; in the 
latter, however, Neo-Assyrian influence on 
spelling and even unconscious interpretation 
cannot be excluded. The well known Mesha 
stone KA/ 181 names Chemosh 10 times, 
and once more in the binomial form ‘Str.kin 
in line 17, and as a theophoric element in 
the king's father's name Kmns[jt] (line 1) that 
we find again in a recently discovered 
second Mesha inscription. Mesha's stela no. 
I is a votive text erected on occasion of the 
building of the bdmd, ‘sacred high-place’, 
mentioned in line 3. Because lines 1-21 and 
31-33 report battles against Israel won by 
Mesha in honour of his god Chemosh and of 
himself, we can suppose from lines 3-4 that 
the bamd and the inscribed stela were con- 
structed at the same time to celebrate these 
victories as mighty acts of the god Chemosh 
and king Mesha whose name means not 
without reason ‘the Saviour’. Lines 21-31 
glorify various efforts of Mesha as city 


187 


CHEMOSH 


founder or restorer and are noteworthily free 
from religious motifs. The main text (lines 
1-21a, 31-33) refers to a holy war which 
seems to be performed like a ritual and is 
brought to an end by the ban (-*Taboo) i.e. 
the execution of the subdued population, 'as 
a spectacle (ryt) for Chemosh and for Moab’ 
(line 12); the technical term hiph‘il Arm ‘to 
ban’ which is well known from the Old Tes- 
tament is used in line 17. In a kind of func- 
tional monolatry, Chemosh is the only sub- 
duer of his enemies, just as Yahweh in 
Israel, who is nevertheless overthrown in 
this case, so that Yahweh's holy implements 
(lines 17-18) as well as the "Pl, perhaps 
‘altar’, of Israel's dwd (= Yahweh?) accord- 
ing to lines 12-13 are brought ‘before 
Chemosh’. Altogether, following holy war 
ideology, Israel must have perished for ever 
(line 7; cf. Judg 5:31), whereas formerly, in 
his wrath, Chemosh had humbled Moab so 
that Israel had come to be victorious (line 5- 
6). The binomial signification “štr.kmš 
identifies Chemosh with the male god 
Ashtar who already plays a merely ridicu- 
lous role as a defunct deity in the Ugaritic 
Cycle of Baal (KTU 1.6 i:44-67), but may 
have remained still more vigourous in mar- 
ginal regions like Moab; on prism B of the 
Neo-Assyrian king Esarhaddon an ‘Arabian’ 
god A-tar-sa-ma-a-a-in *At(t)ar of Heaven’ 
is mentioned (for this and some relevant 
attestations cf. MULLER  1964:391-394). 
Once, Ashtar could have been martial like 
his female counterparts Ishtar and Astarte; 
his epithet ‘rz ‘aweful’ KTU 1.6 1:54-56, 61, 
63 is at the same time atavistic and ironical 
(MOLLER, TWAT 6, 454-456). Therefore the 
identification of Ashtar and Chemosh may 
have served to secure the functional mono- 
latry of the latter in war affairs. A second 
Mesha inscription mentions the name of the 
king's father [K]mijt 'Chemosh has given' 
again, and a [b]t.kmé 'house (temple) of 
Chemosh’ into the bargain (7SS/ 1, 83-84), 
the latter occurring as br k[ms] in a third 
stela fragment found in 1951 (MunmPuv 
1952). 

Moabite royal names in Neo-Assyrian 
cuneiforms are !Ka-am/Kam-mu-su-nad-bi 


*Chemosh is generous to me" (cf. kunijt); 
(Sennacherib, TiMM 1989:346-359); IKa-mu- 
$u-i-ln. *Chemosh is god'; 9Ka-mu-3ti-Sar- 
u$ur '"Chemosh. protect the king’ (cf. 
$wiirsr ‘Šamaš, protect the king’ on an 
Aramaic seal; TiGAy 1987:183 n. 28. 168- 
171) in which Babylonian influence is 
obvious (VAN ZvL 1960:183) and the above 
mentioned !Ka-am-aS-hal-ta-a_ of uncertain 
meaning (Assurbanipal, RÓLLIG; WEIPPERT, 
RLA S [1976-1980] 328, 335-336; Timm 
1989:374-388). Kmš occurs as theophoric 
element in personal names Ams (TiMM 
1989:180-181); kmšyhy (idem 162-165); 
kmšnťš (166-167), kmš‘m (bn) kmšl (168- 
170); kmšşdą (171-173), kmšdn (178-179); 
kmsntn (182-183) on scals. 

Papyrus fragments from Egyptian Sakka- 
ra contain personal names such as Ámsijhj 
'Chemosh may live’, Kmssdq- "Chemosh is 
righteous’ and kimgplt 'Chemosh has saved' 
(AIME-GiIRON 1931; VAN ZyL 1960:40, 
182). Whether a material figure between 
torches represented on Moabite coins is 
Chemosh is a moot point. In Hellenistic 
time, Chemosh has been identified with 
—Ares; therefore the name of the capital 
Diban is now changed to ‘Areopolis’ (GESE 
1970:181). 

Without any historical value is the infor- 
mation of the Suda, a Byzantine dictionary 
from the 10th century CE, that Chemosh was 
the god of Tyre and the Amorites. 

Whether or not the figure on the left side 
of the famous Balu‘ah monument (ANEP, 
no. 488) is Chemosh cannot be decided on 
the basis of the available evidence. 

HI. Biblical evidence on Chemosh is 
scarce and merely incidental. In announce- 
ments of disaster, Moab is called ‘the people 
of Chemosh’ in Num 21:29; Jer 48:46. The 
connexion between a single god and an eth- 
nic community which the god seems to have 
chosen looks like a generalization of the 
functional monolatry we found in the Mesha 
inscription: the first millennium BCE is a 
time of national kingdoms in Syria and 
Palestine; the god of the nation represents its 
solidarity. Judg 11:12.24 takes Chemosh to 
be the god of the Ammonites, which con- 


188 


CHERUBIM 


forms to the same scheme of thinking, but 
makes the wrong. association. 

That Solomon should have introduced, 
east of Jerusalem, the cult of Chemosh, 
—Astarte, and ->Milcom (read lémilkém 1 
Kgs 11:7 instead of /émdélek according to 
LXX LucRec and vv 5, 33 MT; cf. 2 Kgs 
23:13 and emendations to 2 Sam 12:30; Jer 
49:1.3; Zeph 1:5) for the convenience of his 
distinguished foreign concubines is suspec- 
ted to be a Deuteronomistic slander, in reali- 
ty reflecting the idolatrous conditions of the 
exilic time. In v 7, Chemosh is called Sigqfis 
mó'db ‘the abomination of Moab’ which, 
along with the formula 'az yibneh ‘then .. 
built’, may reflect earlier terminology (M. 
Notu, BKAT IX/1, 246). Verse 33 speaks 
in clearly Deuteronomistic style about 
kémós$ "élóhé mó'àb 'Chemosh the god of 
Moab', and that in a pretended announce- 
ment of disaster by Ahijah of Shilo. 
Deuteronomistic, too, is the reference in 2 
Kgs 23:13, according to which Josiah had 
purified the mountains east of Jerusalem 
from the bāmôt, ‘sacred high-places’, of 
Astarte, Chemosh and Milcom. Here we find 
an exact localization that is missing in 1 
Kgs 11:5 LXX and has been secondarily 
inserted in 1 Kgs 11:7. In my opinion, 2 
Kgs 23:13 reflects an ideal of cultic 
purification cherished in pious exilic circles 
(MULLER, TWAT 6, 459-460). 

Of particular interest is the remark in 2 
Kgs 3:27 that Mesha, in a critical situation 
of battle, offered his son on the wall of his 
city, the consequence of which was that the 
wrath of Chemosh began to destroy Israel 
instantly; nowhere else is the mighty activity 
of a foreign god conceded in such an unre- 
strained manner. Unfortunately, we cannot 
reconcile this particular record with the 
largely ideological statements of the first 
Mesha inscription. 

Jer 48:7 announces the exile of the god 
Chemosh (kmy§ !), together with his priests 
and princes (Sdrim). According to v 13, 
"Moab shall be ashamed of Beth-El, their 
confidence'. The context of both passages 
confirms the martial character of Chemosh, 
which agrees with the first Mesha-inscrip- 


tion and with 2 Kgs 3:27, thus confirming 
its authenticity. 
IV. Bibliography 

M. N. AiMÉ-GIRON, Textes araméens de 
l'Égypte (Cairo 1931) 13; M. C. ASTOUR, 
Some New Divine Names from Ugarit, 
JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284, esp. 277-278; 
ASTOUR, Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms, 
JNES 27 (1968) 13-36, esp. 20; H. GESE. 
Die Religionen Altsyriens (RAAM Stuttgart 
1970) 3-232, esp. 140-141; F. GRÓNDAHL, 
Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit 
(Rome 1967) 150; H.-P. MÜLLER, Reli- 
gionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu den 
Texten von Ebla, ZDPV 96 (1980) 1-19, 
esp. 10-11 [& lit; MOLLER, Die Inschrift 
des Königs Mesa von Moab, TUAT 1/6 (ed. 
O. Kaiser; Gütersloh 1985) 646-650; MÜL- 
LER, Kónig Mé$a* von Moab und der Gott 
der Geschichte, UF 26 (1994) 373-395; R. 
E. Mun?Hy, A Fragment of an Early Moabi- 
te Inscription from Dibon, BASOR 125 
(1952) 20-23; G. PETTINATO, Il calendario di 
Ebla al tempo del re Ibbi-Sipis sulla base di 
TM.75.G.427, AfO 25 (1974-77) 28-36; 
PETTINATO, CarchemiS - Kàr-Kamis. Le 
prime attestazioni del III millennio, OrAnt 
15 (1976) 11-15; PETTIINATO, Culto ufficiale 
ad Ebla durante il regno di Ibbi-Sipi$, OrAnt 
18 (1979) 85-215; F. Pomponio, I nomi 
divini nei testi di Ebla, UF 15 (1983) 141- 
156; W. RöLLIG, Kamoš, WbMyth l/l 
(1965) 292; J. H. TiGay, Israelite Religion: 
The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence, 
Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor 
of F. M. Cross (ed. P. D. Miller jr. et alii; 
Philadelphia 1987) 157-194; S. TIMM, Die 
Dynastie Omri (FRLANT 124; Góttingen 
1982) 158-180; TiMM, Moab zwischen den 
Mächten (Wiesbaden 1989); P. XELLa, 1 
testi rituali di Ugarit 1 (Rome 1981) 216- 
250 (& lit]; A. H. vaN ZYL, The Moabites 
(POS 3; Leiden 1960) esp. 180-183, 195- 
198. 


H.-P. MÜLLER 


CHERUBIM C212 
I. The term 'cherubim' occurs 91 times 
in the Hebrew Bible. It denotes the Israelite 


189 


CHERUBIM 


counterpart of the sphinx known from the 
pictorial art of the ancient Near East. In the 
Bible the cherubim occur essentially in two 
functions: as guardians of a sacred tree or as 
guardians and carriers of a throne. 

There is no consensus on the etymology 
of the term. While there are difficulties con- 
nected with the various suggestions that 
have been made (survey in FREEDMAN & 
O'Connor 1983) the most probable is that 
the Heb term is connected with Akk kdribu, 
kuribu, both used with reference to genii in 
Mesopotamian mythology and art (see 
RINALD! 1967). But even so, this provides 
little help in understanding the Israelite 
cherubim. 

II. The study of ancient Near Eastern 
iconography has been instrumental in the 
interpretation of the biblical cherubim and 
here interest has focussed on the sphinx, i.e. 
the winged lion with a human head 
(ALBRIGHT 1938; thorough documentation 
in DE VAUX 1967; METZGER 1985a: 259-83 
and figs 1181-1222; GusEL 1987: 37-84). 
The basic confirmation of this interpretation 
is found in the fact that sphinxes and bibli- 
cal cherubim occur in precisely the same 
above-mentioned functions. 

While the sphinx is known both in Mes- 
opotamia and Egypt, the sphinx throne with 
the sphinxes as an integral element of the 
throne itself (thus not only flanking the 
throne) is a Syrian innovation from the time 
of the 19th Egyptian dynasty. While the 
Egyptian lion-paws throne never cared a 
~god, the Syrian sphinx throne was used 
for both gods and kings. 

The classical examples of the sphinx 
throne are the ivory plaque from Megiddo 
stratum VITA (Iron I), the small throne 
model from the same site, and the relief on 
the sarcophagus of Ahiram (late 2nd millen- 
nium). SEYRIG called attention to a group of 
small, mostly empty votive thrones from the 
Syro-Lebanese coastal area, dating from the 
7th century BCE to Hellenistic times 
(METZGER 1985a: figs 1191-1199). Of these, 
one had a steeply leaning seat incapable of 
receiving an object (METZGER 1985a: fig. 
1201), thus being empty from the beginning, 
without a cultic image, one had a spherical, 


aniconic object on the seat, and one had two 
sculptured stelae leaning towards the back. 
This may have implications for the under- 
standing of the aniconism of the Solomonic 
temple, which was built by Tyrian archi- 
tects. Sphinx thrones bearing a deity are 
known from Mediterranean scarabs from the 
7th-6th centuries (METZGER 1985a: figs 
1184-1188) and later Punic stelae and terra- 
cottae (METZGER 198Sa: figs 1203-1217). 

The deity on these thrones is cither a 
male (Baal Hammon) or a female one 
(-*Astarte). The lion-paws throne from 
which the sphinx throne developed occurs as 
the throne of —El on the Ugaritic E] stela 
(ANEP no. 493). The male deity on the 
sphinx throne, Baal Hammon (P. XELLA, 
Baal Hammon [Rome 1991] 106-140), is 
generally considered as something of an El 
figure (XELLA: 100-105, 233). 

III. While the biblical cherubim some- 
times appear as guardians of the sacred tree 
(1 Kgs 6:29-35; Ezek 41:18-25) or of the 
garden of Eden (Gen 3:24; Ezek 28:14,16), 
the most important function is that of 
bearers of -*Yahweh's throne, cf. Ezek 
10:20 and the divine epithet ydséb hak- 
kériibim, “he who is enthroned on the cheru- 
bim", applied to Yahweh already at Shilo (1 
Sam 4:4; cf. 2 Sam 6:2; Ilsa 37:16 etc.). In 
this function the cherubim express the royal 
majesty of -Yahweh Zebaoth (METZGER 
1985b), his holiness (cf. the cherubim as 
guardians), and his presence (METTINGER 
1982; JaNowski 1991). In the early mon- 
archy, this theology, which may be termed 
Zion-Zebaoth theology. focussed on the 
presence of Yahweh Zebaoth. In Ezekicl and 
P we encounter a Kabod theology of divine 
presence (Glory); in the Deuteronomistic 
-»Name theology the cherubim throne lost 
its importance (METTINGER 1982). 

In discussing the cherubim, the icono- 
graphy of the Solomonic temple and that of 
the Priestly tabernacle must be properly dis- 
tinguished. The Solomonic cherubim are ten 
cubits high (1 Kgs 6:23) and stand parallel 
to cach other in the adyton, facing the nave 
(2 Chron 3:13). Their inner wings meet cach 
other and are conjoined (1 Kgs 6:27; 2 
Chron 3:12) forming the throne seat of the 


190 


CHERUBIM 





invisible deity (HARAN 1959:35-36; KEEL 
1977:24; contrast DE Vaux 1967:233-234). 
The ark is placed underneath the conjoined 
inner wings as the footstool of the Lorn (1 
Kgs 8:6-8; 1 Chr 28:2). The usual assump- 
tion is that the cherubim stand on all four 
legs, just as the sphinxes known from the 
plastic arts. METZGER (1985a: 309-51) has 
advanced a different interpretation: The 
cherubim stand on their back legs and do 
not form a throne. This interpretation is sup- 
ported by a reference to the composition on 
the facade of a Hittite sanctuary at Eflatun 
Pinar (METZGER 1985a: fig. no. 1235). 
Various difficulties are connected with this 
interpretation (METTINGER 1986). It dis- 
solves the connection between the cherubim 
formula and the iconography of the temple 
and it builds on more remote analogies than 
the established interpretation. That there is 
no explicit reference in 1-2 Kgs to the 
throne of the LonD is due to the Deuter- 
onomistic name theology from the exilic 
period which relocated God from the temple 
to heaven (METTINGER 1982:46-52). 

Ezekiel chaps 1 and 8-11 represent a 
visionary development of the iconography 
of the first temple; while chap | is more 
profoundly marked by Mesopotamian pictor- 
ial tradition with four creatures as carriers of 
heaven, chaps 8-11 still speak of cherubim 
(thorough analysis in Keer 1977). In 
Ezekiel the cherubim throne has developed 
into the throne chariot. This is probably due 
to the importance of the theophany tradition 
in Ezekiel, since the theophany tradition has 
the notion of the mobile, coming God (Ps 
18:10-11). In this verse the verb rdkab 
should not be translated as “to ride” but as 
“dahinfahren” (HALAT 1149); Yahweh is 
not depicted as “riding” on a cherub but 
descending in his cherubim chariot (cf. Ps 
77:19). 

In the Priestly tabernacle the cherubim 
have undergone a mutation. They no longer 
stand parallel but face one another and are 
considerably smaller than the Solomonic 
cherubim since they stand on and are of one 
piece with the lid of the ark, the kappóret 
(Exod 25:19-20) which is only 2.5 by 1.5 
cubits (Exod 25:17). Here the cherubim are 


no longer throne bearers but serve as guard- 
ians of the mercy seat from which the 
Kabod, the divine Glory, speaks to Israel. 
The iconography of P may thus have a dif- 
ferent, Egyptian background (GónG 1977). 

While there is now a fair amount of 
agreement about the iconographical back- 
ground of the cherubim, there is still dis- 
agreement on the religio-historical implica- 
tions. Since the cherubim serve both as 
Yahweh's throne and as his vehicle, the 
chariot (Ps 18:11; cf. Ps 104:3), it may be 
that the El traditions of the enthroned deity 
and the -Baal notions of the “Driver of the 
Clouds” have merged (METTINGER 1982: 
35-36). Whether or not one should then pre- 
suppose an influence from the lion dragon of 
the weather god (thus METZGER 1985a: 315- 
323) is a different matter. 

The empty cherubim throne in the 
Solomonic temple is an expression of Israel- 
ite aniconism. It is possible that Tyre and 
Sidon already had such empty thrones as the 
seat of an invisible deity. But even if this is 
so, lsraclite aniconism is not as such a 
Phoenician import; it antedates the Solomon- 
ic temple by several centuries. It is original- 
ly related to the worship of standing stones, 
magsébót. Moreover, the ark also expresses 
an aniconic theology of divine presence. 
Thus, the combination of the empty throne 
and the ark in the temple would seem to 
combine two varieties of aniconism. It 
should be noted that both the cherubim 
iconography of Jerusalem and the bull ico- 
nography of Bethel (with the invisible deity 
standing on the back of the bull) are in 
principle aniconic. 

IV. The biblical notion of Yahweh's 
throne chariot (Ezek !; 1 Chr 28:18) plays 
an important part in Jewish Merkabah mys- 
ticism (MaArER 1964; GRUENWALD 1980; 
esp. HALPERIN 1988). Early Jewish refer- 
ences to the (cherubim) chariot that are of 
interest in this connection are found in Sir 
49:8, LXX Ezek 43:3; Apoc. Mos. 33; Apoc. 
Abr. 18:12; Eth. Enoch 61:10; 71:7. Also, 
the Sabbath Songs from Qumran contain 
noteworthy material (NEWSOM 1985:44-45). 
Thus, 4Q405 20-21-22:8 understands the 
throne as a heavenly secret: “The image of 


191 


CHRIST 


the chariot throne do they bless..." Other 
instances in these texts speak of the 
cherubim as animate beings offering praise 
to the godhead. 
V. Bibliography 

W. F. ALBRIGHT, What Were the 
Cherubim?, BA 1,1 (1938) 1-3; C. M. 
CocHE-Zivie, Sphinx, LdA 5 (1984) 1139- 
1147; A. DESSENNE, Le sphinx. Etude ico- 
nographique (Bibliothèque des écoles 
françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 186, Paris 
1957); D.N. FREEDMAN & M. O'CONNOR, 
WS kértib, TWAT 4 (1983) 322-334 [& lit]; 
M. Gónc, Keruben in Jerusalem, BN 4 
(1977) 13-24; I. GRUENWALD, Apocalyptic 
and Merkavah Mysticism (AGJU 14; Leiden 
1980); E. Gupet, Phoenician Furniture 
(Studia Phoenicia 7; Leuven 1987) 37-84; 
B. HALPERIN, The Faces of the Chariot. 
Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel's Vision 
(TSAJ 18; Tübingen 1988); M. HARAN, The 
Ark and the Cherubim, JEJ 9 (1959) 30-38, 
89-94; W. HErLckK, Der liegende und ge- 
flügelte weibliche Sphinx des Neuen Reiches, 
MIO 3,1 (1955) 1-10; B. JaNowski, "Ich 
will in eurer Mitte wohnen". Struktur und 
Eigenart der exilischen Schekina-Thcologie, 
Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 2 (1987) 
165-193; JaNowskKi, Keruben und Zion, 
Ernten was man sát. Festschrift für Klaus 
Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. D. R. 
Daniels et alii; Neukirchen 1991) 231-264; 
*O. KEEL, Jaliwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst 
(SBS 84-85; Stuttgart 1977); J. MAIER, Vom 
Kultus zur Gnosis. Bundeslade, Gottesthron 
und Märkābāh (Kairos. Religionswissen- 
schaftliche Studien 1; Salzburg 1964); T. 
MzrrINGER, 7he Dethronement of Sabaoth. 
Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies 
(ConB OTS 18, Lund 1982); METTINGER, 
Review of M. Metzger 1985a, Svensk Teo- 
logisk Kvartalskrift 62 (1986) 174-177; *M. 
METZGER, Kónigsthron und Gottesthron 
(AOAT 15:1-2; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1985) = 
1985a; METZGER, Der Thron als Manifesta- 
tion der Herrschermacht in der Ikonographie 
des Vorderen Orients und im Alten Testa- 
ment, Charisma und Institution (ed. T. 
Rendtorff; Tübingen 1985) - 1985b; C. 
NEWSOM, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. A 


Critical Edition (HSS 27; Atlanta 1985); G. 
RiNALDI, Nota, BeO 9 (1967) 211-212; H. 
SEYRIG, Divinités de Sidon, Syria 36 (1959) 
48-56 [Antiquités syriennes no. 70]; *R. DE 
Vaux, Les chérubins et l'arche d'alliance, 
les sphinx gardiens ct les trénes divins dans 
l'ancient Orient, Bible et Orient (Paris 1967) 
231-259 [originally publ. in MUSJ 37 
(1960-61) 91-124]. 


T. N. D. METTINGER 


CHRIST »piotóg 

I. The masculine form of the adjective 
xpıotóç is only found in the LXX, in a few 
early Jewish documents and in the writings 
of the NT. In the LXX the term is used in 
connection with kings, priests and prophets 
(the Hebrew equivalent is másíali), in Pss. 
Sol. 17:32; 18 superscr., 18:5.7 particularly 
in connection with the expected ideal king 
of the future. In the writings of the NT 
christos is used of the coming anointed one 
of Jewish expectation, or of -*Jesus, be- 
lieved to be this ‘Messiah’—see John 1:41 
“We have found the Messiah (transliterated 
in Greck messian) which is translated Christ 
(christos)"; cf. John 4:25. 

The word occurs 531 times in the NT. It 
is Often found in the combinations ‘Jesus 
Christ’ and ‘Christ Jesus’ and (as is usual in 
the case of nomina sacra) there is a great 
deal of variety in the manuscript tradition. 
In many cases, the word christos seems to 
function as a second name and cannot be 
demonstrated to carry the meaning 
‘Messiah’. Of the 531 instances just 
mentioned, 270 are found in the Letters of 
Paul, and another 113 in the Deutero- 
Paulines. It occurs 35 times in the Synoptics 
(but only 7 times in Mark, and never in Q, 
the common source of Matthew and Luke, 
as far as we can see) and 26 times in Acts, 
as well as 30 times in the Gospel and Let- 
ters of John. It is relatively frequent in 1 
Peter (22x). The very high frequency of the 
word in Christian sources, and its function 
as central designation for Jesus, require an 
explanation. 

IH. The corresponding Greek verb chri- 


192 


CHRIST 


ein means ‘to rub, anoint with scented 
unguents or -*oil' or 'to wash with colour, 
to coat'. Anointing had its place in bodily 
hygiene, in athletic contests, at joyous and 
festive occasions, in medicine (and magic) 
and in burial rites; also in a cultic setting 
(anointing of statues of gods, of offerings 
and also of partakers in ceremonies). In the 
LXX we find it used of Saul’s shield (2 Sam 
1:21), and in connection with feminine 
make-up (Ezek 16:9; Jdt 10:3), and with 
preparations for a feast (Amos 6:6: Isa 25:6) 
as well as in a cultic setting. We hear of the 
anointing of the tabernacle, the ark of the 
covenant, the altar and other cultic objects 
(Exod 30:22-29; Lev 8:10; Num 7:1) and a 
few times the word is used in connection 
with unleavened cakes which are offered 
(Exod 29:2; Num 6:15). In Dan 9:24 Theod. 
‘to anoint a most holy place’ refers to the 
(re)dedication of the temple (see also 
KARRER 1991:172-209). The neuter term 
christon occurs, however, very seldom; in 
Aeschylus, Prometheus vinctus 480, Euri- 
pides, Hippolytus 516, Ps.-Galenus, De 
remediis parabilibus 14,548,11 (cf. Theo- 
critus 11,2) it is used of a medicine that ‘has 
to be rubbed on’. In Josephus Ant. Jud. 8 
$137 it means ‘painted’. Interestingly 
Theophilus, Ad Autolycum 1,12, connects 
christon with a ship (‘caulked’), a tower and 
a house (‘whitewashed’), and the verb chri- 
ein with athletes and ornaments—to end 
with Christians who are ‘anointed with the 
oil of God’. In Lev 21:10.12 LXX to elaion 
to christon (‘anointing oil") is used during 
the consecration of the high priest; in Dan 
9:26 LXX that speaks of the future destruc- 
tion of the city and the holy place meta tou 
christou, the latter may mean ‘with what 
was anointed’ rather than ‘with the anointed 
one’ (Theod. ‘with the coming leader’). As 
was already remarked, it is only in the Bible 
and in early Jewish and Christian sources 
that the adjective christos is used in connec- 
tion with persons. In order to understand the 
use of christos for Jesus in the writings of 
the NT we shall, therefore, have to examine 
the instances in the OT (LXX) and the 
occurrences of the Greek word, and its 


counterparts in other languages, in carly 
Jewish sources. 

In the OT category ‘anointed ones’ may 
be priests, kings and prophets.The expres- 
sion ‘the anointed priest’ is found in Lev 
4:3.5.16 (LXX christos) and in 6:15 (LXX 
participle kechrismenos). The high priest is 
meant, just as in Lev 21:10.12 ‘the priest... 
on whose head the anointing oil has been 
poured...” (cf. Num 35:25). At God's com- 
mand, Moses anoints Aaron together with 
his sons (Exod 29; 40:12-15; Lev 8:12-13, 
also Sir 45:15, cf. Exod 28:41; 30:30; Lev 
6:13). Num 3:3 speaks of 'the anointed 
priests" in the plural (LXX éleimmenoi), cf. 
2 Macc 1:10 which mentions a certain 
Aristobulus ‘who is of the family of the 
anointed priests’ (LXX christön). Anointing 
in this context means appointment and con- 
secration, as is indicated by the parallel 
expressions used here. In fact it is the LORD 
himself who may be said to have anointed 
the priests (Lev 7:36). The priesthood of 
Aaron and his successors is meant to be 
eternal (Exod 40:15; Lev 6:15; 16:32-34, 
also Sir 45:7.15). 

As to prophets: In Ps 105:5 (1 Chr 16:22) 
‘my anointed ones’ occurs parallel with ‘my 
prophets’ in a context that speaks of the 
patriarchs. In 1 Kgs 16:16 (cf. Sir 48:8) 
Elijah is told (among other things) to 
anoint Elisha to be his successor. In 1 Kgs 
19:19-21, however, which describes Elisha's 
call, no anointing takes place: Elijah casts 
his mantle upon him. In 2 Kgs 2:1-14, at 
Elijah's departure to heaven, his successor is 
said to receive a double share of Elijah's 
spirit and to take up his mantle. We may 
compare Isa 61:1 where the prophetic author 
declares that the Spirit of God is upon him 
because the Lorp has anointed him. In the 
case of prophets, the emphasis is clearly not 
on the rite of anointing, but on the gift of 
the Spirit of God. 

Numerous instances refer to the anointing 
of kings. The emphasis on divine initiative 
in these cases is reflected in the popularity 
of the expression ‘the LorD’s anointed’ 
(LXX christos kuriou) and the correspond- 
ing expression ‘my. your, his anointed’. It is 


193 


CHRIST 


used in connection with Saul (1 Sam 12:3.5; 
21:7.11; 26:9.11.16.23; 2 Sam 1:14.16, cf. 
Sir 46:19) and David (1 Sam 16:6; 2 Sam 
19:22; cf. 2 Sam 23:3). In the case of these 
two kings, Samuel is God's agent (1 Sam 
10:1-8; 16:1-13; cf. 2 Sam 12:7, and also Sir 
46:13; Ps 151:4 LXX); in both cases there is 
an emphasis on thc gift of the Spirit (1 Sam 
10:6; 16:13, cf. 1 Sam 16:14, 2 Sam 23:2). 
The (Davidic) king is called 'anointed of the 
Lorp’ several times in the Book of Psalms 
(2:2; 18:51 [2 Sam 22:51); 20:7; 28:8; 
84:10; 89:39.52; 132:10 (2 Chr 6:42].17 (cf. 
1 Sam 2:10.35]; compare also Hab 3:13, 
Lam 4:20. In these texts, the LORD's anoint- 
ing denotes an exclusive relationship 
between the God of Israel and the king who 
reigns in his name and is, therefore, assisted 
and protected by him. Quite exceptional is 
the application of the term to the Persian 
king Cyrus in Isa 45:1 “Thus says the Lorp 
to his anointed, to Cyrus” (cf. Hazael in | 
Kgs 19:15-17). This gentile king, who does 
not know or acknowledge the God of Israel, 
receives a commission and the power to 
secure peace and freedom for God's chosen 
people (Isa 45:1-7). He is God's shepherd 
(44:28) where Davidic kings have failed. 

In the Royal Psalms (besides Pss 2; 18; 
20; 89; 132 also 21; 45; 72; 101; 110; 144), 
the psalmists, referring to God's promises 
and instructions to David and his dynasty, 
make far-reaching assertions about the 
Davidic king and his family. They do not 
yet envisage a future ideal son of David. In 
later times, however, elements in these 
psalms have played a role in the expecta- 
tions regarding a future Davidic anointed of 
the Lorp. Strikingly, none of the passages 
in the Prophets announcing a decisive and 
lasting change in the plight of Israel, in 
which a descendant of David figures as an 
ideal king in the name of the Lorp, uses the 
designation ‘anointed of the Lonp' (Isa 9:1- 
6; 11:1-9; Mic 5:1-3; Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-16; 
Ezek 17:22-24; 34:23-24; 37:24-25). These 
passages, too, have influenced later expecta- 
tions. 

After 
Babylon, 


the return from the exile in 
Zerubbabel, a descendant of 


David, is hailed by Haggai; but, in Zech- 
ariah, we note a juxtaposition of him and the 
high priest Joshua (Zech 3:8; 6:9-14 and 
especially 4:14 “they are the two ‘sons of 
oil’ who stand by the Lord of the whole 
earth”). A similar juxtaposition of the house 
of David and the levitical priests, said to last 
for ever, is found in Jer 33:17-26 (cf. 1 Sam 
2:35; 1 Chr 29:22). Sir 49:11-12 praises 
Zerubbabel and Joshua jointly for rebuilding 
the temple. In a Hebrew addition to Sir 
51:12 we find the house of David and the 
priests (called ‘the sons of Zadok’) again 
mentioned side by side. On the whole, 
however, Sirach's ‘Praise of the Fathers’ 
(chaps. 44-50) pays more attention to God’s 
covenant with the priests—sce the culogy of 
Aaron (45:6-22), of Phinchas (45:23-26) and 
of Sinon (ch. 50) over against the praise of 
David (47:1-11) and the long section on his 
descendants who reccive praise and blame 
(47:12-49:4). The book's attention centres 
here around the temple and the priesthood. 
This is also the case in Dan 9:24-27 where 
in v. 25 ‘until the time of an anointed one, a 
prince’ and in v. 26 ‘an anointed one will be 
cut off refer to high priests, Joshua and 
Onias (in the time before Antiochus's cap- 
ture of Jerusalem) respectively. One should 
note that here the word mdSiah is used twice 
absolutely, but without an article). 

In early Jewish documents, the expecta- 
tion of a ‘messiah’, i.e. a person said to be 
‘anointed’, functioning as God's agent in his 
definitive intervention in the world's affairs 
in the (near) future, does not occur very 
often. The hope of divine intervention is 
important and even central in many 
writings; but God need not engage human 
(or angelic) agents of deliverance and these 
need not be called ‘messiah’. 

In a number of sources, the juxtaposition 
of kings and priest(s) receives attention. In 
Jubilees, Isaac's blessing of Levi and Judah 
is recorded in 31:13-17 and 31:18-20 
respectively, but the emphasis is on the 
functions to be exercised by the two sons of 
Jacob and their descendants—although in v 
18 we read "a prince shall you be, you and 
one of your sons" (David? a future Davidic 


194 


CHRIST 


king?). Also in the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs Levi and Judah occupy an im- 
portant place; but the interpretation of this 
document is difficult because of an intensive 
Christian redaction (if not more), particular- 
ly noticeable in the eschatological passages. 
This is the case in 7. Levi 18 which deals 
with the advent of a new priest and T. Judah 
24 describing the coming of an ideal king. 
and the passages announcing a future 
~saviour/salvation connected with (one of) 
these tribes (T. Sim. 7:1-2; T. Napht. 8:2-3; 
T. Gad 8:1; T. Jos. 19:6(11), cf. T. Levi 
2:11: T. Judah 22:2; T. Dan 5:10). Twice, in 
T. Levi 17:2-3, the participle chriomenos is 
used for persons anointed for the priesthood. 
The word christos is found in T. Reub. 6:8 
that limits Levi's priestly activities to the 
period ‘until the consummation of times (the 
times) of the anointed high priest, of whom 
the Lord spoke’. In view of T. Levi 4:4; 5:2 
and chaps 10; 14-15 and 16 this passage 
must be regarded as Christian. 

The Dead Sea Scrolls mention anointing 
in connection with high priests, kings and 
prophets. The interpretation of this Qumran 
material is difficult because of the fragmen- 
tary nature of much of the evidence. Part of 
it may have originated after the group was 
formed under the leadership of the ‘Teacher 
of righteousness’; part of it may date from 
an earlier period. 

In a number of cases the prophets of the 
OT are called ‘anointed’—see CD 5:21-6:1, 
1 QM 11:7-8 and esp. CD 2:12 ‘the 
anointed ones of his -Holy Spirit’ (cf. now 
4Q287 fr. 10 and 4Q377 fr.2 ii, 5. ‘through 
the mouth of Moses, his anointed’). In 
11QMelch ii, 18 the term ‘the anointed of 
the Spirit’ is used for the ‘one who brings 
good tidings’ of Isa 52:7 (cf. Isa 61:1!). He 
announces God's intervention through 
~Melchizedek, conceived as an angelic 
figure. It may be that the same prophetic 
figure is meant in 4Q521 fr. 2 ii+4, begin- 
ning with "...the heavens and earth will lis- 
ten to his anointed one" and describing what 
the Lord will accomplish for his righteous 
and pious servants at the end of times (here, 
however, the plural ‘his anointed ones’ is 


also possible). 

Another future prophet is mentioned in 1 
QS 9:11 "... until there shall come the 
prophet and the anointed ones of Aaron and 
Israel" (perhaps referring to Deut. 18:18-19, 
a text mentioned in 4QTestim alongside 
Num 24:15-17 and Deut 33:8-11). The term 
‘anointed one of Israel’ retums in 1QSa 
2:14.20, a description of an eschatological 
banquet where he and the high priest and 
their subordinates are present (whether in 
2:11-12 ‘the anointed one’ (ammdSiah) is 
used absolutely, and then for the royal 
figure, is disputed). It is clear that the high 
priest is the leading figure: as in 1QM where 
he gives the directives for the eschatological 
war (1QM 2:1; 15:4; 16:13; 18:5; 19:11) 
and the ‘prince of the congregation’ is 
mentioned only in passing (1QM 5:1). Also 
in other texts where a royal and a (high) 
priestly figure(s) are mentioned together the 
latter is/are clearly the most important, as 
interpreter(s) of the Law (CD 7:18-21; 
4QFlor iii, 11; 11QTemple 56:20-21; 57:11- 
15; 58:18-21; 4Q161 fr. 8-10, 18-25). In 
4Q376 fr. 1 i, 1 we meet the expression ‘the 
anointed priest’, clearly to be identified with 
‘the anointed priest, upon whose head has 
been poured the oil of anointing’ in 4Q375 
fr. 1 19 (cf. Lev 21:10.12 and 1QM 9:8). 
The royal figure expected for the future is 
mostly called 'the prince of (all) the congre- 
gation’ or ‘Branch of David’; but, in 4Q 252 
fr. 1 v, 3. we find the expression ‘the righte- 
ous anointed one' (lit. 'the anointed one of 
righteousness') and in 4Q458 fr.2 ii, 5 the 
term ‘anointed with the oil of the kingship’ 
occurs. 

The meaning of the expression ‘anointed 
one of Aaron and Israel' in CD 12:23-13:1; 
14:19: 19:10-11 (cf. 20:1) is still disputed. 
The term 'anointed' is found here in the 
singular, but many have argued that the 
expression nevertheless admits of a plural 
interpretation. It is also possible that at some 
stage the prerogatives of the ‘anointed one 
of Isracl’ were absorbed into the concept of 
the anointed Aaronic priest. 

The texts preserved at Qumran show a 
great variety in images and concepts, as well 


195 


CHRIST 


as applications of texts from the Scriptures. 
One looks forward to the time when the 
Law will be fully understood and when the 
will of God will be obeyed completely. 
Then a duly appointed high priest and a 
Davidic prince—whose anointed status is 
sometimes mentioned—will discharge their 
functions in a proper way. 

In the Psalms of Solomon, a group of 
pious Jews look out for God’s deliverance in 
the time of the last Hasmoneans and 
Pompey. In Pss. Sol. 17 and 18 God is 
expected to act through a Davidic king who 
will rule as a representative of God who 
himself is king of Israel for ever (17:1.46). 
In 17:21-45 the king’s rule is described at 
great length, with many references to the 
OT psalms and prophecies mentioned above. 
The king will free Israel from its enemies 
and he will serve the Lord as an ideal right- 
cous and wise man in the midst of a God- 
fearing people. In 17:32 and 18:5.7 (plus the 
superscription of that psalm) the king is 
called ‘anointed’. In view of ‘his anointed 
one’ (18:5), the christou kyriou in 18:7 and 
18 superscr. is to be translated ‘of the 
anointed of the Lord’. This suggests that the 
expression christos kyrios (‘an anointed 
lord* or ‘anointed, a lord’) found in 17:32 is 
the result of careless or deliberate alteration 
from the genitive to a nominative by a later 
Christian scribe. The most likely translation 
of the verse is, therefore: "And he (will be) 
a righteous King over them, instructed by 
God, and there is no unrighteousness among 
them in his days, for all are holy and their 
king an anointed of the Lord”. In 17:32 the 
expression is still used as a qualification of 
the expected son of David; in Psalm 18 it 
has become a title. 

In the Parables of Enoch, chaps 37-71 of 
the composite document known as / Enoch, 
we find two instances of the term ‘his 
anointed’ (48:4; 52:4). The dating of this 
part of / Enoch is still disputed; but most 
scholars assume a final redaction some time 
during the first century CE. The term is one 
of the designations of a heavenly redeemer 
figure who is thought to have been with God 
from the beginning (48:3.6) and who 


remains in God’s presence as a champion of 
the righteous. He is often called ‘that (the) 
—Son of man’ (cf. Dan 7:9-14 referred to in 
1 Enoch 46:1-3), the Chosen One (cf. Isa 
42:1, see e.g. 1 Enoch 39:6; 40:5, cf. 46:3) 
or the Righteous One (38:2, cf. 46:3). 48:8- 
10 speaks about the defeat of the kings of 
the earth by God's elect because 'they have 
denied the Lord of Spirits and his anointed'. 
The reference to Ps 2:2 is obvious: it may 
have led to the use of ‘his anointed’ in this 
passage. In chap 52, the visionary sces 
mountains of various metals and is told by 
an accompanying -*angel that “these will 
serve the dominion of his anointed that he 
may be potent and mighty on the earth" 
(52:4). In v 6 this is explained as their melt- 
ing as wax before the fire in the presence of 
the Chosen one. 

The next apocalypses to be discussed, the 
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Ezra, 
reflect on the destruction of the temple in 70 
CE and must therefore be dated some time 
after that event. In 2 Apoc. Bar. 39:7; 40:1; 
72:2 we find the expression ‘my anointed’, 
in 70:9 ‘my servant, the anointed one’ and 
twice, in 29:3; 30:1, the absolute ‘the 
anointed’. In all cases a royal figure is envi- 
saged. He reigns for a limited period intro- 
ducing a time of bliss and incorruptibility 
(see 30:2; 70:3 and esp. 40:3 “His kingdom 
will stand for ever, until this world of cor- 
ruption comes to an end and the times 
appointed are fulfilled"). The anointed 
one/messiah judges and destroys Israel's 
final enemies (39:7-40:2; 70:9) and brings a 
period of peace and abundance (29:2-30:1; 
40:2-3; 71:1). He is said ‘to be revealed’ 
(29:3; 39:7; cf. 73:1) and is clearly thought 
to have been with God before his appear- 
ance on earth. In 30:1 he is predicted to 
return in glory (cf. again 73:1) and a general 
resurrection follows. 

In 4 Ezra a future redeemer is mentioned 
in 7:26-29; 11:37-12:3 and 12:31-34; 13:3- 
13 and 25-52) and (in passing) in 14:9. 
There are considerable differences between 
these passages. In two instances the term 
‘anointed one’ occurs. The first is 7:26-29 
which describes how ‘my anointed one’ (or: 


196 


CHRIST 


"my son/servant, the anointed one’, see vv 
28-29) will be revealed with his companions 
at the time the still invisible city and the still 
concealed land will become visible. The 
redeemer docs not seem to have a function 
in realizing this turn in events. He is said to 
bring four hundred years of happiness to all 
who remain, After that period, everyone, 
including the anointed one, will die (v. 29). 
For seven days the world will return to pri- 
meval silence; after which a new age of 
incorruptibility will begin, bringing resurrec- 
tion and judgment (vv 30-44). In the inter- 
pretation of the vision of the Eagle and the 
Lion (11:1-12:3), the lion is identified as 
‘the anointed one whom the Most High has 
kept until the end of days, who will arise 
from the seed of David’ (12:32, cf. Gen. 
49:9). The absolute form of the term is used 
(Lat. unctus) and the Davidic descent of the 
redeemer receives emphasis. In the vision 
(11:36-46) as well as in the interpretation 
(12:31-34) he charges his counterpart (the 
Roman empire) with his crimes. He will 
convict and destroy him, and give joy to the 
survivors in the land until the day of judg- 
ment comes. It should be noted that the 
messiah is already with God before he ap- 
pears (cf. 7:28, and 2 Apoc. Bar. and ] 
Enoch). 

The term ‘anointed one’ is not found in 
any of the other early Jewish documents. It 
is never used by Flavius Josephus in his 
descriptions of royal and prophetic figures 
who were active as leaders of groups of 
people during the century before the fall of 
Jerusalem. A number of early Christian wri- 
tings collected in the NT, however, pay con- 
siderable attention to expectations concer- 
ning the messiah in contemporary 
Judaism—even more than the Jewish sour- 
ces at our disposal would lead us to expect. 
This has to be explained by the conviction 
of the followers of Jesus that he was the 
long-expected messiah, and by discussions 
between them and other Jews precisely 
about this belief. In Acts c.g. Paul is port- 
rayed as trying to convince members of dia- 
spora synagogues that Jesus is the Mes- 
siah/Christ (9:22; 17:3; 18:5, cf. 18:28 of 


Apollos). In Mark 12:35, Jesus questions 
the—clearly common—conception of the 
scribes that ‘the Christ is the son of David’: 
and, in Mark 15:32, the chief priests and 
scribes speak of ‘the Christ, the king of Isra- 
cl'7-in the context it is made clear that 
Jesus’ mission has no political overtones. 
Mark 13:21-22 speaks about false messiahs 
and false prophets: clearly addressing the 
situation in the period before, during and 
after the Jewish war against Rome 
(--Roma). Also in the discussions between 
Jesus and ‘the Jews’ in the Fourth Gospel 
(although intended to bring out the essential 
points of Johannine Christology) we find a 
number of Jewish tenets concerning the 
messiah. For instance, it is said that the 
messiah will be a descendant of David and a 
native of Bethlehem (John 7:42). In 12:34 
the Christ is expected ‘to remain for ever’ 
(cf. Ps 89:36-37). In 7:27 the statement 
*when the Christ appears no one will know 
where he comes from’ may be connected 
with the concept of the revealing of the 
messiah found in Jewish apocalyptic texts. 
In all these cases, the term ‘the 
messiah’/‘the Christ’ is used without any 
further addition. 

III. In the oldest Christian writings, the 
letters of Paul, the term christos occurs 270 
times (out of a total of 531 for the entire 
NT!). It was clearly the central designation 
for Jesus in early Christian circles; but it 
received its content not through a previous- 
ly-fixed concept of messiahship, but rather 
from the person and the work of Jesus— 
with special reference to his death and resur- 
rection, the salvation effected by him and 
the intimate bond between him and his 
followers. In many instances the word func- 
tions as a (second) name, although Paul, of 
course, knew that it carried a special mean- 
ing, and his readers, in so far as they werc 
familiar with the OT and Jewish tradition, 
must have realized this too. In a list of 
God's privileges for Israel Paul writes “of 
their race, according to the flesh, is ho 
christos" (Rom 9:5). The titular use of the 
term may also be, at least partly, intended in 
a number of other passages (Rom 15:7; 1 


197 


CHRIST 


Cor 1:23; 10:4; 15:22-28; 2 Cor 5:10; 11:2- 
3; Gal 3:16; Phil 1:15.17; 3:7). But Paul 
clearly speaks about the one Christ, Jesus, and 
even in Rom 9:4 his point is equally valid 
for those readers who do not realize that he 
is using a ‘technical’ term. In 2 Cor 1:21 
there is a play on words between ‘Christ’ 
and ‘anointing’ but the verb is not used for 
Jesus but for those united with him in bap- 
tism. In 1 Cor 1:23; Gal 5:11 and Gal 3:13 
Paul argues that a crucified messiah was 
unacceptable for his fellow-Jews (this may 
have biographical overtones). Yet he regards 
it as unnecessary to argue that Jesus is the 
messiah expected by Israel, because both he 
and his readers are convinced that he is. 

This is also evident in earlier formulae 
used in Paul’s letters and clearly familiar to 
his readers: e.g. ‘Christ died for us/you’ 
found (with variations) in Rom 5:6.8; 14:15; 
| Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 Thess 5:9-10. 
'Christ is also used in formulae speaking 
about death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-5; 
2 Cor 5:15; Rom 8:34; 14:9). The term 
occurs repeatedly in connection with faith 
(e.g. Gal 2:16), preaching (e.g. 1 Cor 15:11- 
14) and especially with ‘gospel’ (Gal 1:7; 1 
Thess 3:2). Next, Paul uses it where he 
stresses the close link between Christ and 
his followers: as in the expressions 'of 
Christ’ (e.g. ! Cor 1:12; 3:23; 15:23) and ‘in 
Christ’ (Rom 8:1; 12:5). This corporate lan- 
guage presupposes baptism (cf. Gal 3:26-28 
{‘baptized into Christ’], Rom 6:3-11). 

At the time the oldest gospel, that of 
Mark, was written, it was clearly necessary 
to remind readers how the confession ‘Jesus 
is the Christ’ had to be understood. Out- 
siders regard Jesus, the herald of the king- 
dom of God (Mark 1:14), as a John the Bap- 
tist redivivus, or —Elijah, or one of the 
prophets (8:28, cf. 6:14-16). Peter, on behalf 
of the disciples, confesses: "You are the 
Messiah/Christ" (8:29). Jesus, however, tells 
his disciples to keep silent about him (8:30) 
and announces his suffering, death and 
resurrection (8:31, cf. 9:31: 10:32-34). In 
Mark 12:35-37, the scribes are portrayed as 
saying that ‘the Christ is the son of David’ 
(cf. 15:32 ‘the Christ, the king of Israel’). 


Jesus, twice addressed as ‘son of David’ by 
Bartimaeus (10:47-48) and associated with 
‘the coming kingdom of our father David’ 
(11:9-10), refers to Ps 110:1. This passage is 
clearly hinted at in 14:61-62 where Jesus, 
standing before the Sanhedrin, acknowl- 
edges that he is "the Christ, the son of the 
Blessed One™, but adds “you will see the 
Son of man seated at the right hand of the 
Power and coming with the clouds of 
heaven (Ps 110:1: Dan 7:13)". Jesus will 
reign as Son of man/Son of David-Messiah- 
/Son of God when God's rule will fully be 
established on earth (cf. also 8:38-9:1; 
13:26). The immediately following story of 
the trial before Pilate in chap. 15 makes 
clear that Jesus is not a ‘king of the Jews’ in 
the political sense of that term, or an insur- 
gent like Barabbas. Only at the parousia, 
when God's kingdom will become full reali- 
ty, will the royal rule of the crucified mes- 
siah be shown to be triumphant. Mark 15, as 
Mark 13 which speaks about false messiahs 
and false prophets (vv. 21-22), reflects the 
tensions connected with the war between the 
Jews and the Romans culminating in the 
destruction of the temple in 70 ck. 

All in all, Mark uses christos rather 
sparingly. In Q—the sayings source behind 
Matthew and Luke—the term is not found at 
all. Matthew essentially underlines what is 
found in Mark, using the term more often 
than his predecessor. He emphasizes that 
Jesus is son of David (1:1-17.20; 21:9, cf. 
22:41-42). In 2:1-6 he makes clear that 
"Christ denotes the Messiah, Son of David, 
king of Israel. The designation 'son of 
David' is especially used in stories about 
Jesus' healings (9:27-31; 12:22-23; 15:21- 
28; 20:29-34; 21:14-17). 

In Luke-Acts we find the terms ‘the 
anointed of the Lord' (Luke 2:26; Acts 4:26) 
and 'the anointed of God' (Luke 9:20; 
23:35). It is specified that God anointed 
Jesus with the Spirit—so in Luke 4:18, 
quoting Isa 61:1, Acts 10:38 and also 4:27. 
‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’ are found as parallels in 
Luke 2:12 and Acts 2:36. Another typical 
feature of the Lukan use of christos is found 
in a variant of the double formula about 


198 


CHRIST 





Jesus’ death and resurrection, of which the 
first part speaks of the suffering of '(the) 
Christ’ (Luke 24:26.46; Acts 17:3; 26:23. cf. 
3:18; 25:19). In Acts, it becomes clear that 
this is a special debating point between Jews 
and Christians (cf. 9:22; 18:5.28 mentioned 
above). Finally it should be noted that in 
Acts 11:26 (cf. 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16) the 
designation ‘Christians’ is first used for the 
followers of Jesus in Antioch. 

As already noted, the Gospel of John 
describes Jesus in an ongoing debate with 
Jewish opponents, in which interesting 
features emerge of Jewish expectations con- 
cerning the messiah. For the gospel itself, 
faith in Jesus as the Son of God (11:27: 
20:31), living in a unique unity with the 
Father, is of primary importance. In the 
Johannine communities, this received so 
much emphasis that the author(s) of 1 and 2 
John felt obliged to remind their readers that 
Jesus Christ had ‘come in the flesh’ (1 John 
4:2-3; 2 John 7; cf. 1 John 5:6). 

Among the other NT writings, Hebrews 
repeatedly calls Jesus ‘high priest’. It makes 
clear that this has to be construed in the 
light of Ps 110:4 “you are a priest for ever 
according to the order of -*Melchizedek" 
(e.g. 5:6; 7:17). In 7:4-14 it states explicitly 
that Melchizedek was superior to -*Abra- 
ham who paid him tithes, and that, there- 
fore, priests according to the order of 
Melchizedek are superior to those according 
to Aaron, descendant of Levi, great-grand- 
son of Abraham. Jesus. descended from 
—Judah, belonged to the first category, and 
hence the salvation brought about by him is 
vastly superior to anything effected by those 
officiating according to the rules of the OT 
cult: particularly as this new high priest 
"offered himself without blemish to God" 
(9:14). 

In Revelation the titular meaning of 
christos is evident in 11:15; 12:10 and 
20:4.6. The announcement in 11:15 “The 
kingdom of the world has become the king- 
dom of the Lord and his anointed” is clearly 
influenced by Ps. 2:2 (cf. 11:18, reminiscent 
of Ps 2:1-2:5.12 and Ps 99:1). The emphasis 
is on God's sovereignty, as vv 17-18 show. 


In 12:10 the same theme is repeated: “now 
the salvation and the power and the king- 
dom of our God and the authority of his 
anointed have come”. In 20:4-6 we find a 
description of the reign of the faithful who 
have given their lives for their testimony to 
Jesus and the word of God. They will come 
to life and will reign with the Anointed/ 
Christ for a thousand years. In chap. 5 the 
seer hears the announcement ‘the Lion of 
the tribe of Judah, the Root of David has 
conquered’ (v 5, cf. 3:7; 22:16). He sees a 
—Lamb standing near God's -*throne ‘as 
though it had been slain' (v 6, cf. 7:9-10.17; 
13:8). This lamb is the Lion of Judah (cf. vv 
12-13). In 17:14 the victorious Lamb is 
called ‘the Lord of lords and King of kings’: 
and the same name is inscribed on the robe 
and the thigh of the rider on the white horse 
in 19:11-16. During the persecution and the 
distress at the end of the first century CE, 
Christians in Asia Minor are (still) very 
much aware of the ‘messianic overtones’ in 
the designation ‘Christ’ which is used for 
Jesus. 

It is not easy to explain how the term 
christos, found in relatively few passages in 
contemporary Jewish literature, became a 
central designation for Jesus that could very 
soon receive a specific Jesus-centered mean- 
ing. 
The idea of an anointed high priest, 
important in the Dead Sea Scrolls, is not 
found in early Christian writings—the con- 
cept found in Hebrews is entirely different. 
The notion of a prophet ‘anointed with the 
Spirit’ found in Luke-Acts suits the picture 
of Jesus found in the Synoptic Gospels very 
well. Unfortunately we cannot prove that 
this interpretation of the use of christos is 
older than Luke. The related Q-passage 
Luke 7:18-23 par. Matt 11:2-6 does not use 
christos. 

In most instances where 'messianic' con- 
notations are evident in the Christian use of 
the term, we find emphasis on royal el- 
ements. In a number of cases Jesus’ Davidic 
descent is mentioned, see e.g. Mark 12:35- 
37; 14:61-62 and (already) the pre-Pauline 
formula Rom 1:3-4 (cf. 2 Tim 2:8). The 


199 


CLAUDIUS — CLAY 


royal dominion of this son of David may 
have been believed to become evident at the 
parousia. Yet the Synoptics and John seem 
to prefer the term ‘Son of man’ in connec- 
tion with this future event, whilst Paul pre- 
fers —*kyrios. Only in Phil 1:6.10; 2:16; 1 
Cor 15:23-28 do we find ‘Christ’ in connec- 
tion with eschatological rule (cf. Acts 2:36, 
3:20-21 and Revelation). 

The story of Jesus’ activities in Galilea 
and Judea reveals hardly any royal- 
messianic features. Were they connected 
with Jesus by over-ardent followers who 
regarded him as the expected messiah? Or 
was he falsely accused of being a royal 
pretender by his opponents who wanted to 
get rid of a dangerous person? It is often 
argued that this must have been the case and 
that, because Jesus was crucified as ‘king of 
the Jews’, his first followers took up the 
royal designation ‘Christ’ as an honorific 
and used it particularly in connection with 
his death and resurrection. It is difficult to 
verify this hypothesis. An unsatisfactory 
aspect of it is that it assigns a final role to 
Jesus’ opponents in the choice of the term 
characterizing his public appearance. 

Another hypothesis is that already during 
his lifetime, Jesus’ disciples came to regard 
him as a special son of David/Messiah. 
Mark 8:29 makes Peter confess him as 
Messiah on the strength of Jesus’ activity as 
(unique) preacher, teacher, healer and ex- 
orcist. Interestingly, contemporary Jewish 
sources portray David not only as king but 
also as prophet. Josephus, Ant. Jud. 6 §166- 
168, following 1 Sam 16:13-23, explains 
how after the divine Spirit had moved to 
David, the latter began to prophesy and to 
exorcise the -*demons which troubled Saul 
(cf. Ps. Philo, LAB 59-60). 11QDav Comp 
attributes 3600 psalms to David as well as 
450 songs, four of which were ‘songs for 
making music over the stricken’ (lines 9- 
10). It is stressed that David spoke all these 
things through prophecy. We may compare 
here 2 Sam 23:1-2 (as well as Isa 11:1-5) 
and the statement ‘David was a prophet’ in 
Acts 2:30 (cf. 1:16; 4:25). 

In view of these traditions, Jesus could be 


called a true son of David, and ‘anointed of 
the Lord’: not only in view of his future role 
when God's Kingdom would reveal itself 
fully, but also in the present while he dis- 
played God's power as prophet-teacher and 
exorcist. It is possible that Jesus himself 
used 'Christ'/'Messiah' as self-designation. 
creatively but modestly (see Jesus' reticence 
in Mark and the absence of the term in the 
sayings source Q): perhaps trying to avoid 
misunderstanding. 
IV. Bibliography 

J. H. CHARLESWORTH (ed.), The Messiah. 
Developments in Earliest’ Judaism and 
Christianity (Minneapolis 1992); J. J. CoL- 
LINS, The Scepter and the Star: The Mes- 
siahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other 
Ancient Literature (New York 1995), F. 
Garcfa MARTINEZ, Messianische Erwartun- 
gen in den Qumranschriften, Jahrbuch fiir 
Biblische Theologie 8 (1993) 171-208; M. 
HENGEL, Erwiigungen zum Sprachgebrauch 
von Xpictóg bei Paulus und in der 'vor- 
paulinischen' Uberlieferung, Paul and Pau- 
linism. Essays in honour of C. K. Barrett 
(ed. M. Hooker & S. G. Wilson; London 
1982) 135-158; M. HENGEL. Jesus der 
Messias. Zum Streit tiber das ‘messianische 
Sendungsbewusstsein' Jesu, Messiah and 
Christos. Studies in the Jewish Origins of 
Christianity (FS. D. Flusser, ed. I. Gruen- 
wald et al.; TSAJ 32: Tübingen 1992) 155- 
172; M. DE JONGE, Christology in Context. 
The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus 
(Philadelphia 1988); DE JONGE, Jewish 
Eschatology, Early Christian Christology 
and the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs. Collected Essays (NovTSup 63; 
Leiden 1991) Chaps. 1-8. 12; M. KARRER, 
Der Gesalbte. Die Grundlage des Christus- 
titels (FRLANT 151; Góttingen 1991). 


M. DE JONGE 


CLAUDIUS -> RULER CULT 


CLAY Dd 

I. In the Ugaritic texts a binomial deity: 
zz wkmt (KTU 1.100:36; 1.107:16) is at- 
tested. VIROLLEAUD read the first name as 


200 


CLAY 


ft. He and other scholars connected the word 
with Heb fit, Akk tidu(m), titu, titt/ddtu, 
Aram fyn/fíinà (DISO 110); Ar fin ‘clay’, 
‘mud’. [t is the substance from which man 
was made (Atra-Hasis 1.210-260). As such it 
is not mentioned in the OT, but here the 
word appears parallel to /iomer (Isa 41:25; 
Nah 3:14, cf. Isa 45:9; 64:9; Job 10:9; 33:6). 
Otherwise it is a usual word for dirt, silt or 
any slimy deposit (Jer 38:6; Ps 18:43; Mic 
7:10). Sometimes a more mythic connota- 
tion is implied when it refers to living con- 
ditions in the netherworld (Ps 40:3; 69:15; 
Job 41:22 KAPELRUD, TWAT 3, 343-344). 
Jewish exegetical tradition considers fit 
hayyàwen (Ps 40:3) to be one of the 
designations of hell (ISRAEL 1991-92:61-62). 
The second name kmt has been taken as an 
attestation of the Moabite god, >Chemosh 
(VIROLLEAUD; ASTOUR 1966; MULLER 
1980). Because this Moabite god—equated 
with Babylonian -*Nergal—is seen as a god 
of infernal and chthonic nature, the binomen 
zz understood as fif is sometimes adduced as 
evidence for the chthonic character of the 
deity (ISRAEL 1991-92; MATTINGLY 1989: 
217). In the OT sit has no divine status. 

II. The Ugaritic binomial god is attested 
in three incantations and a text which looks 
like a god-list, but might have been a kind 
of litany or benediction (KTU 1.123; DE 
Moor 1970). Twice the spelling zz wKmnt is 
found (KTU 1.100:36; 1.107:16) and once 
zz.wkmt/d. ilm[ ] (KTU 1.82:42-43). The 
latter text confirms that the rendering ought 
to be 22 and not ff. KTU 1.123 has tz wkmt, 
which is either a mistake or an alternative 
spelling for zz wkmt. In the incantation KTU 
1.100 the cultplace of zz is Aryt, perhaps 
identical with Hiina in Northem Syrian or 
Mesopotamia (ARM 8, 100:19; AIT 201:15; 
AsTOUR 1968). In KTU 1.82:41-42 the bi- 
nomial deity appears as servant of the god 
—Horon, who is pre-emimently a god of 
spells and curses at Ugarit. That is virtually 
all that is known about their character. Pre- 
sumably, the second divine name occurs in 
the Ug name pumĪmu(bin)-ka-mi-ši (PRU 3, 
195 = RS 15.09: A.2) as it does in Ebla 
(MÜLLER 1980), but if alphabetic cuneiform 


bn gmš (KTU 4.611:18; 4.713:2) is the same 
name and person, the equation kıt = Kamiši 
becomes questionable (WATSON 1990:118). 

III. The relationship between Ug zz and 
Heb fit is rather problematic. KAPELRUD 
does not mention the Ugaritic evidence at 
all. If DE Moor’s analysis (1970) of Ug ttn 
in KTU 1.1 iv:8 is correct, two or even three 
distinct words for ‘clay’,‘dirt’ would already 
exist in Ugaritic like in Arabic (tit; rt; tt[m]; 
RENFROE 1992). The initial sér is attested in 
all cognates, suggesting an original root 
*TYN. From a phonetic point of view the 
proposed derivation of zz is hard to main- 
tain. DierricH & Loretz think of a god of 
Hurrian origin, which would account for the 
diverse spellings (TUAT I1/3, 348), but 
Hurrian-Hittite sources do not mention 
them. A god Kamish was definitely known 
in Ebla in the 3rd millenium (MULLER 
1980; Permnato 1981; ISRAEL 1991-92) 
and he could be identical to Ug kmt, but 
even then the connection between kmt and 
Chemosh remains very tenuous. Most prob- 
ably the divine name zz had nothing to do 
with fit. 

IV. Bibliography 
M. C. Astour, Some New Divine Names 
from Ugarit, JAOS 86 (1966) 277-284; 
ASTOUR, Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms, 
JNES 27 (1968) 13-36, esp. 20; F. ISRAEL, 
TT WKMT: Les avatars de l'enigmatique 
dieu TT, Sem 41/42 (1991-92) 59-62: A. 
KAPELRUD, tyt, TWAT 3 (1982) 343-344; G. 
L. MATTINGLY, Moabite Religion and the 
Mesha‘ Inscription, Studies in the Mesha 
Inscription and Moab (ed. A. Dearman; 
Archeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta 
1989) 211-238; H. P. MÜLLER, Religions- 
geschichtliche Beobachtungen in den Texten 
von Ebla, ZDPV 96 (1980) 10-11; J. C. DE 
Moor, Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts 
From Ras Shamra II, UF 2 (1970) 312-316, 
esp. 314; G. Pettinato, The Archives of 
Ebla. An Empire Inscribed in Clay (New 
York 1981) 150-152, 245; F. RENFROE, 
Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies (ALASP. 5; 
Miinster 1992) 67-68; C. VIROLLEAUD, 
Ugaritica V (1968) no. 7 (RS 24.244); no. 8 
(24.251); no. 10 (RS 24271); W. G. E. 


01 


CONSTELLATIONS 


Watson, Ugaritic Onomastics (1), AulOr 8 
(1990) 113-127. 


M. DIJKSTRA 


CONSTELLATIONS min 

I. The Hebrew term mazzalét (sing. 
mazzal) occurs once in the Bible in 2 Kgs 
23:5. Many authors hold that a second 
occurence may be found in Job 28:32 in the 
slight phonetic variant of mazzdrét. The 
context in Job is clearly astronomic, while 
mention is made in 2 Kgs 23 of astral cults 
which were prohibited by Josiah. 

Mzl derives from the Akk manzaztu 
>manzaltu, ‘abode’ or ‘station’. Perhaps 
they were originally the celestial abodes of 
the great gods represented by the -stars 
(MOWINCKEL 1928:24). In the Babylonian 
Creation epic, -Marduk is represented as 
setting the heavenly bodies in order. He 
allotted their stations to the great gods, di- 
viding the constellations of the zodiac and 
the months of the year among them 
(MAUNDER 19093:244). Intended in a tech- 
nically astronomical sense, they indicate the 
stations on the sidereal orbit of the moon 
and those on the ecliptic of the sun (the 
ecliptic being the apparent annual celestial 
path of the sun [Helios, ^Shemesh] rela- 
tive to the fixed stars). Thus they strictly 
indicated the constellations of the zodiac 
and, even more precisely, the term stood to 
indicate the zodiacal signs after the division 
of the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, cach 
part being called after the constellation to 
which it most closely corresponded at the 
time (about 700 BCE in Mesopotamia). 
Zodiacal constellations or signs is the mean- 
ing that the Heb mazzdlér has in the Bible. 

The term occurs in Phoen as mil, ‘for- 
tune’; in MHeb as mz, ‘sign of the zodiac’, 
‘planet’ or ‘luck’; in Jew Aram as mal’, ‘star 
of fortune’ or ‘planet’; in Syr as rnauzaltá, 
‘zodiac’. There is also in Mandaean 
mnz7vlr, ‘signs of the zodiac’ (borrowed 
directly from Akkadian) and mandalta, Ar 
manzil, ‘mansion of the moon’. 

II. Typical of astrology in ancient Mes- 
opotamia was the omina system which 


studied celestial phenomena as signs or indi- 
cators of future terrestrial events. However, 
the study of the influence of the heavenly 
bodies over the course of events on earth 
Originated in the Hellenistic sphere (ROCH- 
BERG-HALTON 1992:504). It is not clear just 
when the Greeks adopted the zodiac—and 
the notion of the ecliptic. These concepts are 
particularly important in the elaboration of 
genethlialogical or horoscopic astrology. 
Babylonian precedents, in existence before 
the Greek horoscopes (from ca. 400 BCE), 
recorded computed positions of the moon, 
the sun and the five planets—Jupiter, Venus, 
Mercury, Saturn and Mars—on the date of a 
birth (ROCHBERG-HALTON 1992:] 506). The 
Babylonians considered the sun, the moon 
and the five planets as their seven great 
divinities. The zodiacal constellations were 
closely connected to them and they 
themselves became objects of a religious 
cult. 

IHI. A syncretistic cult of Assyrian 
influence is attributed to the biblical 
mazzálót and they are mentioned in 2 Kgs 
23:5 along with important astral divinities 
such as the sun, the moon and the -*host of 
heaven, as well as the Syro-Canaanite 
-*Baal. The listing of Baal, the sun and the 
moon is typically Syrian. We have here, 
therefore, constellations of the ecliptic, even 
though, if we reflect on the meaning which 
the term ‘planets’ has taken on in Jewish 
Aramaic and Middle Hebrew, we cannot 
exclude that this semantic value was already 
present in the biblical term (what is more, 
the “abodes” are also dwelling places for the 
planets). One must also consider that the 
passage under perusal in 2 Kgs is a later 
addition to the account of Josiah’s cultic 
reform (GRAY 1977:732; MONTGOMERY & 
GEHMAN 1986:546). One could even com- 
pare it to parallel passages in Deut 17:3 
(where the mazzalét that became so popular 
in Israel in the late post-exilic and post- 
biblical periods are not even mentioned) or 
in Deut 4:19 (where "stars" are cited in 
general terms on the list of forbidden dei- 
ties, perhaps meaning just special groupings 
of stars or else important planets as 


202 


CONSTELLATIONS 





distinguished from the "host of heaven" in 
general). The moon’s “abode” is mentioned 
in Hab 3:11 under the term zbl. 

The interpretation of mazcdrét in Job 
38:32 is problematic, because the feminine 
plural of the noun does not agree with the 
singular pronominal suffix of b‘nv: “Canst 
thou bring forth mazzdrét in its season?”. In 
this context the stars are not deified. Indeed, 
the Lorp -*God reigns supreme in the uni- 
verse which is disposed by Him. Not all 
authors support the “constellation” interpre- 
tation (still connected with the zodiac). 
MOWINCKEL (1928:27-36) cautiously pro- 
poses to interpret the term as Booetus. 
SCHIAPARELLI (1903:95-111) perceives both 
mazzàlót and mazzárót as Venus in her two- 
fold aspect of evening and morning star. 

Regarding other specific constellations, 
the Bible provides very few plain facts. We 
may consider the names which appear in Job 
9:9; 26:13; 37:9; 38:31-32 and Amos 5:8. 
There is a certain amount of consensus in 
interpreting kimd as the -*Pleiades and késil 
as — Orion; 'ayi3 or *à$ could be -*Aldebaran 
with the Hyades; mézdrim is interpreted as 
the two winnowing-fans, i.c. the Great Bear 
and the Little Bear (ScHiAPARELLI 1903:86- 
92) or Antares (MOWINCKEL 1926:16-23); 
hadré téman are mostly considered as the 
Southern Cross, Canopus and Centauri, stars 
of the southern hemisphere which, in bibli- 
cal times, were visible in the sky over Israel, 
though no longer so today because of the 
precession of the equinoxes—Canopus 
excepted. Also to be remembered is nāhaš, 
usually understood to be Draco (-*Dragon, 
-*Serpent). 

IV. The Targum translates. mazzálót as 
mzl? and mazzárót as Stry mzly! which 
should indicate the signs of the zodiac; the 
LXX transcribes mazouróth without translat- 
ing in either case; the Vg translates these 
terms as the twelve signs in 2 Kgs and 
Lucifer in Job. St. John Chrysostom adopted 
zdidia, the signs of the zodiac, noting how- 
ever that many of his contemporaries inter- 
preted »nazouróth as Sirius. Mz! became of 
frequent usc in the Talmud and in rabbinical 
literature, generally holding the meaning of 


? 


‘planet’ and ‘zodiacal sign’. [t also in- 
creasingly appeared with the meaning of 
‘luck’. It is not by coincidence that in a later 
period in the history of the Hebrew language 
this term was endowed with the meaning of 
‘luck’. through a semantic loan already pres- 
ent in another Semitic language, Phoenician. 
A bilingual Greek-Phoenician inscription 
from the 4th century BcE which was dis- 
covered at Cyprus (KAI 42:5) has the term 
mzl corresp